No Mere Mouthpiece An Examination of the Hesiodic Farmer by Richard J. P. Kavadas B.F.A. University of Victoria, 2000 B.A. University of Victoria, 2002 A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS In the Interdisciplinary Graduate Program © Richard J. P. Kavadas, 2008 University of Victoria All rights reserved. This thesis may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without the permission of the author. ii Supervisory Committee No Mere Mouthpiece An Examination of the Hesiodic Farmer by Richard J. P. Kavadas B.F.A. University of Victoria, 2000 B.A. University of Victoria, 2002 Supervisory Committee Dr. Gordon Shrimpton, Supervisor (Department of Greek and Roman Studies) Dr. Paul West, Co-Supervisor (School of Environmental Sciences) Dr. Real Roy, Additional Member (Department of Biochemistry and Microbiology) Dr. Daniel Bryant, Outside Member (Department of Pacific and Asian Studies) iii Abstract Supervisory Committee Dr. Gordon Shrimpton, Supervisor (Department of Greek and Roman Studies) Dr. Paul West, Co-Supervisor (School of Environmental Sciences) Dr. Real Roy, Additional Member (Department of Biochemistry and Microbiology) Dr. Daniel Bryant, Outside Member (Department of Pacific and Asian Studies) Examines the character construction of the Hesiodic ‗farmer‘ in the scholarship of Works and Days. Questions Hesiod‘s intimacy of agricultural knowledge: was he a practical farmer or a non-farming poet? Using my farming experience I question the adequacy of the information in Works and Days for use as a farming manual. Lines 635-640 - Hesiod‘s description of the climatic conditions of Ascra in respect to farming are set against soil properties (soil biochemistry as an evaluating tool) and agricultural responses (farming methods of other cultures) shows Hesiod to have little grasp of the farming methods each situation requires. Text comparatives: Fan Shêng-Chih Shu an ancient Chinese agricultural text detailed with attention to soil fertility. Supporting ancient texts: Cato on Agriculture, Columella on Agriculture, Theophrastus on Plants, Xenophon Oeconomics and Homer‘s Odyssey for references to dung and soil fertility. The vague farming information suggests a non-personalized experience - the Hesiodic ‗farmer‘ is probably not a practical farmer at all. iv Table of Contents Supervisory Committee ................................................................................. ii Abstract ........................................................................................................ iii Table of Contents ......................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements ...................................................................................... v Dedication .................................................................................................... vi Introduction ................................................................................................... 1 Scholarly Review Chapter 1 .................................................................................................... 23 Hesiod‘s Complaint and Solution Hesiod the Farmer Hesiod‘s Farm and the Climate Hesiod‘s Farm and Soil Soil: the fertile substrate Signs Variables in Soil Soil Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium Soil Nutrient Cycles Nutrient Return Manuring Chapter 2 .................................................................................................... 62 Fan Shêng-Chih Knowing the Land Compost as Fertiliser Soil Nutrient Returns Theophrastus Columella More Than a Farming Manual West Just City Kopros in the Odyssey Snodgrass Hanson Marsilio Clay Literary Concerns Farming Knowledge Conclusion ................................................................................................ 116 Bibliography .............................................................................................. 130 Appendix .................................................................................................. 148 v Acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge the support and encouragement of the Department of Greek and Roman Studies in this thesis research and writing. I particularly would like to thank Dr. Ingrid Holmberg and Dr. Gordon Shrimpton for their acceptance of my application for a Master‘s degree in Interdisciplinary Studies. I acknowledge the financial support the Department of Greek and Roman Studies provided in Teacher Assistance terms and Fellowships, which made this thesis possible. I am particularly grateful for Dr. Shrimpton‘s ongoing encouragement and mentoring. I am equally grateful to Dr. Real Roy and Dr. Paul West (and their respective Departments) for their support and mentoring through the research and writing of this thesis. I further acknowledge the Department of Graduate Studies for accepting the application for a Master‘s in Interdisciplinary Studies and the University of Victoria, for the support and opportunity to undertake a Master‘s Degree. I acknowledge all fellow students, faculty, and visiting lecturers that spent time in discussion over the premise of this thesis; your feedback is immeasurable; I thank you. Further, I acknowledge the farmers, retired and active, who taught me the art of farming. vi Dedication I dedicate this thesis to the person who endured endless hours of conversations about ploughs, soils, microbes, oral knowledge, crops, social-politics of the ancient world and manure, and still greets me with a smile - Danielle, my wife. I further dedicate this thesis to my daughters Jasamine and Alexandra for their patience, encouragement and support, and to my father Alexander Kavadas and my grandfather Dimitrios Kavadas who taught me how to ‗see‘ the plant world and its role in the human experience. Introduction While the poet Hesiod writes about the practice of farming in Works and Days and portrays himself as a farmer, I will present evidence to demonstrate why I believe that Hesiod was not a farmer. I will approach the poem from personal farming experience, and through the lens of my personal history in farming I will critique Hesiod‘s Works and Days. My main focus will be on Hesiod‘s description of the climate where he was supposedly farming and what those climatic conditions mean in relation to farming. I will also examine the level of information Hesiod provides on farming. By ‗level of information‘ I mean a level of knowledge, which reflects the depth of the information provided, suggesting either a closeness, i.e., firsthand experience or a distancing, i.e., secondhand information or observational reporting. I suggest that there are two sources of agricultural knowledge: a personalized or private understanding of farming as opposed to a public or community understanding of farming. I question whether Hesiod offers a personalized level of farming information, which would indicate personal experiences in farming and suggest that he is a true farmer, or whether he offers a more generalized level of information on farming, suggesting that his source on farming lore is from common knowledge held in the 2 community, suggesting Hesiod was not necessarily a farmer. I further ask if Hesiod‘s description of the climatic conditions are taken at face value, then what personal events, actions, responses, has Hesiod taken; thereby demonstrating or offering ‗signatures‘ of a personalized history in farming in the climate he describes. I propose to view Works and Days through the eyes of a farmer. I understand the danger of assuming that the ancient Greek farmer would and could share a similar viewpoint as a farmer in the modern world. I would, however, point out that agricultural knowledge is not something that can be gained from simple observation or understood fully without entering into the practice of farming. The art of farming is a learned skill that involves a level of personalized understanding of methodologies and rationale employed in the process of crop production. I will apply the practical knowledge taught to me by older and often retired farmers while critiquing Works and Days. Many of my teachers were pioneers (novice farmers) who settled and farmed the prairies from the late 1880‘s onward. Their knowledge of farming was drawn from personal histories of successful and failed experiences with crop production from year to year. The ‗on the farm‘ solutions to various crop and livestock demands varied from farmer to farmer in relationship to each particular situation. Each farmer I learned from had his or her own way of teaching, but each shared the same tendency to reference his or her own experiences as a teaching tool and as a source of knowledge. I will be searching for information within Works and 3 Days which reflects this sense of personalized history or intimate level of knowledge of farming. The evidence I present will support the concept that there are two levels of agricultural understanding, one private – a personalized practical farming knowledge particular to a localized attention; the other public – generalized observations applicable beyond the localized area. I will draw attention to what is mentioned and what is not in Hesiod‘s list of ‗actions‘ a farmer must follow to be successful. I will bring attention to the role of the soil as the medium a farmer must learn to ‗read‘ or understand for successful farming and question Hesiod‘s lack of attention to his soil condition. The condition of the soil was the main concern for most of