Tensions in Knowledge-construction in Pliny the Elder’s Books on Astronomy and Agriculture Robert Taylor Birkbeck University of London PhD Thesis 2015 1 I declare that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Signed: 2 For Yoshimi 3 Abstract In the course of this thesis I engage with the recent academic consensus that Pliny’s Natural History should no longer be regarded as a work of pedantic compilation, but should instead be understood as a work of ethical and intellectual coherence. The central aspect of my engagement is the investigation of the tensions, epistemic and social, that appear to be present in the formation of much of the knowledge that Pliny represents. The examples I use are taken mainly from the books on astronomy and agriculture, and include knowledge of eclipses, agriculture, herbs, and portents. I have taken a number of different, but related, approaches in seeking to understand knowledge-transactions in the Natural History; they can be generally categorised as belonging either to the field of the Philosophy of Science, or of STS (Science and Technology in Society studies). In applying methods developed in these fields I hope to problematise not just Plinian representations of social and knowledge-groups, but also to interrogate the basis of the knowledge that is reflected in the Natural History. As well as examining specific episodes of knowledge-construction (an eclipse before a battle, a puzzling encounter with rustic herb-growers, a multiple birth in Ostia), I examine Pliny’s concern with luxuria with a view to understanding more fully both the particular knowledge that informs his ethical judgements, and how his treatment of this knowledge helps articulate his perspective on Man, Nature, and the divine. 4 Acknowledgements No work of scholarship of the scale of a PhD thesis could be completed without the support of a great number of people. My work is no exception. Indeed, not only could it not have been brought to fruition – it could not have even been contemplated without certain of the people I acknowledge here. First of all I want to express my heartfelt thanks to my supervisor, Dr Serafina Cuomo, for her inspiration, her wisdom, her enthusiasm, but most of all for her unfailing patience. When my research appeared to be heading up a blind alley, when I was stuck in a rut for an extended period, Serafina was unfailingly positive, and each supervision inspired me afresh. Always full of ideas, always encouraging, I would not have got to the finishing line without her kind, gentle, but insistent, prodding. Thanks also go to the Arts and Humanities Research Council, who generously funded my research. I realise how fortunate I am to have received such financial support, especially now that such support is becoming increasingly hard to come by. Without it, I might well not have undertaken this project; at the very least I would not have finished it yet. I would also like to thank the following people for their insights, their advice, and their kind encouragement: Dr April Pudsey, Dr Caroline Humfress, Dr Jen Baird, Dr Lucy Grig, Professor Andrew Erskine, Professor Emmanuel Mayer, and Dr Jerry Toner. Special thanks go to Dr Michalis Sialaros, who undertook to read the entire thesis and subsequently made some very helpful comments. Without the support of Birkbeck College I would never have contemplated undertaking PhD research, and I am more grateful than I can say for the intellectual stimulus, the fun, and the comradeship that the staff and students gave me over the nine years (on and off) that I have been associated with it. Coming to university education at a late stage is not easy, but neither is teaching mature students; a fact that I am more aware of now I am teaching my own classes. For putting up with an awkward, and at times very annoying student, I thank Professor Catharine Edwards, Dr Rex Winsbury, Dr Christy Constantakopoulou, and Dr Errietta Bissa. Ending my relationship with Birkbeck will leave a rather large hole in my life. 5 It is often said that the PhD student’s existence can be a lonely one, and this is undoubtedly true. I, however, have had the pleasure of being part of a lively and young group of doctoral researchers whose friendship has been both intellectually stimulating and very energising. For making my days spent in the ICS so enjoyable, I would like to thank Alex Millington, Colin Runeckles, Gabrielle Villais, Ellie Mackin, Andrew Roberts, Bobby Xinyue, Helena Meskanen, Jeff Veitch, Luke Richardson, Naomi Scott, Stephen Royston-Davies, Roel Konijnendijk, Steven Cosnett, Tom Coward, Yukiko Kawamoto, and Victoria Gyori. My sons Guy, Hugh, and Tom, and my daughter Laura have encouraged me in my academic efforts from the outset. Another supporter has arrived recently – my granddaughter Keiko is a constant source of delight. They all keep me going, even when the road seems long and I am grumpier than usual. I would like to say here what I sometimes find hard to say to them directly – that I love them, and am proud of them all. Finally, I come to the person to whom I have dedicated this work – my wife Yoshimi. None of what I am, and none of what I have achieved, would have been possible without her. I am nothing without her. From the first time we met she has supported, encouraged, and loved me, despite my many failings. She has never doubted me, and has sacrificed much to ensure that I was able to study at university when our children had finished their own studies. When I broached the possibility of doing a PhD she was enthusiastic that I do it from the very start. Words cannot begin to describe the debt I owe to her. If someone were to ask my friends to describe the smartest thing I ever did in life, they would not say ‘he got a First’, or ‘he did doctoral study in ancient history’. They would say ‘he chose to share his life with Yoshimi’. And they would be right. London 2015 6 Table of contents 1 Introduction 8 1.1 Defining ancient status groups and their associated knowledge: the 14 literature 1.2 Recent work on the Natural History 33 1.3 Knowledge and its social context 48 2 Vulgar knowledge at war: epistemic tensions at Pydna 58 2.1 Pliny, Pydna, and the eclipse of 168 68 2.2 Control: manipulation or education? 80 2.3 Context-specificity of knowledge 86 2.4 Conclusion: The vulgus and superstitio 94 3 Agricultural knowledge – a contested epistemology? 101 3.1 Agricultural knowledge and survival 105 3.2 Beneficent Nature, knowledge, and the ideology of the soil 108 3.3 Agricultural knowledge transmission 116 3.4 Conclusion 134 4 Agricultural knowledge and social status 138 4.1 Social status, anonymity, and ignorance 144 4.2 Rustic knowledge and the acceptance of ignorance 155 4.3 Elite Selbstdarstellung through representation of low-status expertise 165 4.4 Vilican and agricolan knowledge and status 173 5 Prodigious knowledge – portents, status and the individual 179 5.1 Identity and Status 191 5.2 Knowledge and authority 204 5.3 Mirabilia and monstra 212 5.4 Conclusion 214 6 Conclusion: Pliny and Luxuria 220 6.1 Agriculture, botany, and the connoisseurs’ perversion of expertise 223 6.2 Luxuria, productivity and desidia 230 6.3 Portentous luxuria and the vulgus 235 6.4 Conclusion 240 Primary Source Editions 243 Bibliography 247 7 1. Introduction Pliny is one of the prodigies of Latin literature, boundlessly energetic and catastrophically indiscriminate, wide-ranging and narrow-minded, a pedant who wanted to be a populariser, a sceptic infected by traditional sentiment, and an aspirant to style who could hardly frame a coherent sentence. That is the impression given by his only surviving work, and no other evidence gainsays it. In a busy life, much of it in public service, Pliny found time for many intellectual activities, but not often for second thoughts.1 It seems safe to assume that Frank Goodyear, at least, was no great admirer of the Natural History. Yet the abuse he heaped upon Pliny, although extreme, was up to a point representative of the prevailing attitude to the encyclopaedist from the nineteenth century until the end of the 1980s.2 It is therefore refreshing that after many years of neglect and misreadings the Natural History has, in the past twenty- five years or so, been the subject of much scholarly debate. The consensus that has subsequently emerged is that the work is both more intellectually coherent and rationally constructed than was previously recognised by Goodyear and others.3 My thesis engages with that consensus and builds upon the scholarship of, among others, Mary Beagon (Pliny’s ‘human animal’ and the Roman mode of thought),4 Valerie Naas (Pliny’s imperialising agenda),5 Trevor Murphy (the Natural History as a political document and cultural artefact),6 Sorcha Carey (Pliny’s art history and its relation to luxuria) 7 , and Aude Doody (reception of the Natural History, especially on how the modern dichotomy between science and encyclopaedism 1 Goodyear 1982:670-672. 2 On the history and reception of the Natural History see Isager 1991:9-14; Healy 1999:viii-ix; Carey 2003:7-11; Beagon 2005:35-36; Doody 2010:40ff. 3 Carus 1880:68-72; Norden 1974:314; Mazzini 1987:85. 4 Beagon 2005; Beagon 1992. 5 Naas 2002. 6 Murphy 2004. 7 Carey 2003. 8 serves to obscure Pliny’s intellectual polemics).8 My own overriding interest in the Natural History is what it can reveal about Roman knowledge, and especially its construction by those who have left us no literary self-representations, and whom I shall define in the course of this chapter – the non-elite.