Get Metadiscourse in digital communication: new research, approaches and methodologies d'angelo free
Metadiscourse in Digital Communication: New Research, Approaches and Methodologies D'Angelo
https://ebookmass.com/product/metadiscourse-indigital-communication-new-research-approaches-andmethodologies-dangelo/ For dowload this book click link below
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
Qualitative Methodologies in Organization Studies: Volume I: Theories and New Approaches 1st Edition
in Digital Communication New Research, Approaches and Methodologies
Metadiscourse in Digital Communication
“This book combines a range of theoretical and methodological approaches to metadiscourse and offers new conceptual tools and frameworks for analysing written, spoken and multimodal discourse. The studies included in the volume draw on data collected from different contexts of digital communication, offering new perspectives on the role of metadiscourse in building and maintaining interaction between individuals and within different communities. Importantly, the studies included here are not restricted to academic and professional domains, as several authors explore new research avenues, such as communication on social media platforms.”
Maria Kuteeva, Professor of English Linguistics, Stockholm University
Larissa D’Angelo
Anna Mauranen • Stefania Maci
Editors
Metadiscourse in Digital Communication
New Research, Approaches and Methodologies
Editors
Larissa D’Angelo
Department of Foreign Languages
Literature and Cultures
University of Bergamo
Bergamo, Italy
Stefania Maci
Department of Foreign Languages
Literature and Cultures
University of Bergamo
Bergamo, Italy
Anna Mauranen
University of Helsinki Helsinki, Finland
ISBN 978-3-030-85813-1
ISBN 978-3-030-85814-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85814-8
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifcally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microflms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifc statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affliations.
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Acknowledgements
This book has been supported by the MIUR-funded research project (PRIN—Research Project of National Interest) Knowledge Dissemination Across Media in English: Continuity and Change in Discourse Strategies, Ideologies, and Epistemology under the COFIN grant agreement no. 2015TJ8ZAS_002. The Knowledge Dissemination Across Media in English project ran from 2017 to 2020 and included six university partners: Modena, Bergamo, Pisa, Rome, Milan and Florence. The project, central to innovation in research and institutional change, focussed on different aspects of knowledge dissemination (KD): disciplinary KD strategies of recontextualisation in webgenres (webpages and blogs) (Modena), journal websites and the impact of digital publishing on generic hybridization (Bergamo), audiovisual genres of KD in ESP contexts (Pisa), the construction of credibility in specialised KD (Rome-Sapienza), critical discourse analysis of a thematic issue (bio-ethics) (Milan) and diachronic perspectives in news discourse (Florence).
1 Metadiscourse in Digital Communication: A Short Introduction 1 Larissa D’Angelo and Stefania Maci
2 “Gonna write about it on my blog too” Metadiscourse in Research Blog Discussions 11 Anna Mauranen
3 Reflections on Reflexivity in Digital Communication: Towards a Third Wave of Metadiscourse Studies 37 Annelie Ädel
4 Metadiscourse in Academic Research Articles Versus Blogs: Paul Krugman as a Case Study 65 Donatella Malavasi
5 This Has Changed: ‘Out-of-the-Box’ Metadiscourse in Scientific Graphical Abstracts 81 Carmen Sancho-Guinda
6 Lemons and Watermelons: Visual Advertising and Conceptual Blending
Nihada Delibegovic Džanic and Sanja Berberovic
7 Metadiscourse in Social Media: A Reflexive Framework 133 Ylva Biri
notes on contributors
Annelie Ädel’s research interests include discourse analysis, English for Specifc Purposes and corpus linguistics. She is full professor at Dalarna University, Sweden. She received her PhD in English linguistics from Gothenburg University, Sweden, and has been affliated with the University of Michigan’s English Language Institute as director of their research unit on Applied Corpus Linguistics and with Stockholm University as a research fellow. School of Humanities and Media Studies, Dalarna University, Falun, Sweden
Sanja Berberovic holds a PhD in Linguistics from the University of Osijek, Croatia. She is Associate Professor of English Language and Linguistics in the Department of English Language and Literature at the University of Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Her main research interests are the cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy and conceptual integration theory. University of Tuzla, Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Ylva Biri is a PhD candidate in the Doctoral Programme in Language Studies, University of Helsinki. She received a master’s degree in English philology from the University of Helsinki. Her MA thesis applied corpus linguistics to study metadiscourse in blogs and online news texts. She continues her research in a PhD project on writer-reader interaction in interest-based social media groups. Her research interests include sociolinguistics, register analysis and computer-mediated communication. Faculty of Arts, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
Larissa D’Angelo is Associate Professor of English Language and Translation at the Department of Foreign Languages, Literatures and Cultures of the University of Bergamo and the Head of the University Eyetracking Lab. She is an active member of CERLIS (Research Centre on Specialized Languages), and her main research interests deal with biometric analyses, multimodality, audiovisual translation, corpus linguistics and metadiscourse. Department of Foreign Languages, Literature and Cultures, University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy
Nihada Delibegovic Džanic PhD, is Associate Professor of English Language and Linguistics at the University of Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina. She teaches linguistics courses at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. She holds a PhD in Linguistics from the University of Osijek, Croatia. Her main interests are cognitive linguistics and phraseology. Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Tuzla, Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Stefania Maci (PhD, Lancaster University, UK) is Full Professor of English Language at the University of Bergamo. She is Director of CERLIS (Research Centre on Specialized Languages), and member of CLAVIER (The Corpus and Language Variation in English Research Group), BAAL (British Association of Applied Linguistics), AELINCO (Spanish Association of Applied Linguistics), and ESSE (European Society for the Study of English). She also serves on the Board of AIA (Associazione Italiana di Anglistica). Her research is focussed on the study of the English language in academic and professional contexts, with particular regard to the analysis of tourism and medical discourses. Department of Foreign Languages, Literature and Cultures, University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy
Donatella Malavasi is Associate Professor of English Language and Translation at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia. Her research interests lie in discourse analysis, corpus linguistics and business communication. Her current research activity deals with the practices and strategies of knowledge dissemination across genres in business and academic contexts. Dipartimento di Studi Linguistici e Culturali, Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
Anna Mauranen is Professor and Research Director at the University of Helsinki. Her research and publications include ELF, academic discourses, corpus linguistics, translation studies and theoretical modelling of speech. She is co-editor of Applied Linguistics and formerly founding co-editor of
the Journal of English as a Lingua Franca. Recent books: Language Change: The Impact of English as a Lingua Franca (2020; co-ed with Vetchinnikova); Linguistic Diversity on the EMI Campus (2019; Co-ed with Jennifer Jenkins); (forthc.) Refexively Speaking – Uses of Metadiscourse in ELF (DeGruyter Mouton). University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
Carmen Sancho-Guinda has been teaching Professional and Academic Communication in the Department of Linguistics Applied to Science and Technology at the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid for more than 30 years. Her major research interests comprise the interdisciplinary analysis of academic, professional and political discourses and genres, the discourse of science dissemination and outreach, and the teaching/learning of academic literacies, especially within the area of English-medium instruction in higher education. She is the editor-in-chief of Ibérica, and editorial board member of the Journal of English for Academic Purposes. Dpto. de Lingüística Aplicada a la Ciencia y la Tecnología, ETSIAE (Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería Aeronáutica y del Espacio), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
list of figures
Fig. 3.1 The refexive triangle. (Based on Ädel, 2006)
Fig. 3.2 Sketch of a screenshot of the vlogger starting the frst game
Fig. 3.3 Sketch of a screenshot of the vlogger chatting in the frst game
Fig. 3.4 Sketch of a screenshot of the vlogger in the second game. The grey shape in the centre is meant to depict the hand of the drowning character emerging from the water. English subtitles are visible below
Fig. 3.5 Sketch of a screenshot of the vlogger starting the third game
Fig. 3.6 Illustration of the metadiscourse that occurs in the vlog, where the vertical red line represents the main vlog frame and the horizontal grey lines represent the three gaming sequences
Fig. 3.7 Sketch of a screenshot showing written text summing up the metalinguistic sequence
Fig. 5.1 Genre constellation of visual abstracts
Fig. 5.2 Different variants of the visual narrative/evolution pattern. (Accessible in Windows Offce’s toolbar)
Fig. 5.3 Different variants of classifcatory representations. (Accessible in Windows Offce’s toolbar)
Fig. 5.4 A proposal for a taxonomy of stylisation
Fig. 5.5 Visual summary of the metadiscursive changes brought about by digital transduction
41
47
48
48
49
50
53
90
92
93
106
108
Fig. 6.1 The basic diagram representing a conceptual integration network (Fauconnier & Turner, 2002: 46) 122
Fig. 6.2 Conceptual integration network for the advertisement If life gives you lemons, a simple surgery can give you melons
Fig. 6.3 Conceptual integration network for Know your lemons campaign
125
128
list of tAbles
Table 2.1 Orienting and retrieving discourse refexivity in spoken dialogues and monologues 23
Table 2.2 Egocentric and altercentric discourse refexivity in spoken dialogues and monologues 24
Table 2.3 Orienting and retrieving discourse refexivity in dialogues: digital and spoken 25
Table 2.4 Egocentric and altercentric discourse refexivity in dialogue: digital and spoken 25
Table 2.5 Altercentric metadiscourse in dialogues: addressee versus third party 26
Table 2.6 Third-party references in blog threads
27
Table 3.1 A taxonomy of text response building on Rose (2008) 57
Table 4.1 Research articles: metadiscursive units with related raw frequency and the number of texts in which they occur 69
Table 4.2 Blog posts: metadiscursive units with related raw frequency and the number of texts in which they occur 73
Table 5.1 GA typology of exemplars in Elsevier’s website 99
Table 5.2 Taxonomy of visual interactive metadiscourse items (signposters) in Elsevier’s GA exemplars 100
Table 5.3 Taxonomy of visual interactive metadiscourse (signposting) based on compositional strategies in Elsevier’s GA exemplars 101
Table 5.4 Taxonomy of visual interactional metadiscourse (stance and engagement) based on compositional strategies in Elsevier’s GA exemplars 102
Table
CHAPTER 1
Metadiscourse in Digital Communication: A Short Introduction
Larissa D’Angelo and Stefania Maci
Abstract This introduction provides an overview of past and current research on metadiscourse and highlights new research discourses emerging from the feld. It starts by explaining how metadiscourse has evolved in the past 20 years and the reasons why it continues to fascinate researchers in professional and academic felds in a variety of disciplines and domains. It then focuses on the fact that as communication moves online and a variety of genres become digitalised, researchers active in metadiscourse are increasingly concerned with digital communication and are questioning or adapting well-established methodologies but also proposing new and much-needed perspectives on refexivity. The feld is undoubtedly in a fux, and new and interesting approaches and eclectic frameworks are emerging, some of which are contained in this very volume. The introduction ends with a brief presentation of the chapters that follow.
Keywords Metadiscourse • Digital communication • Refexivity • Genre analysis • Discourse analysis • Corpus linguistics
L. D’Angelo (*) • S. Maci
Department of Foreign Languages, Literature and Cultures, University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy
L. D’Angelo et al. (eds.), Metadiscourse in Digital Communication, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85814-8_1
L. D’ANGELO AND S. MACI
Metadiscourse is amply used in discourse analysis to refer to an approach conceptualising interactions “between text producers and their texts and between texts producers and their users” (Hyland, 2005: 1). It embodies the idea of language in use and as such is highly dialogic and interpersonal (Ädel, 2006; Hyland, 2005). Although the term was coined at the end of the 1950s (Hyland, 2005), the research feld was established in the 1980s and the 1990s, when most of the research work has revolved around written, monologic academic genres and where the interactive and interpersonal aspects characterising metadiscourse have been seen from a univocal academic perspective—that of the text producers. Indeed, as claimed by several scholars (cf, for instance, Garzone et al., 2007; Jones et al., 2015; Pérez-Llantada, 2016), the interest in oral and written forms offering academic and non-academic writers extensive space for self-expression and engagement with readers was long due, leaving behind those modes where synchronous/asynchronous communication with one’s readers and listeners is central.
The New Millennium saw the upsurge of new, thought-provoking studies in the feld of metadiscourse: innovative trends began to emerge, developing new research methodologies, including visual research methods with a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches, emphasising on discourse analysis, corpus linguistics and genre analysis. Amongst them, a relevant role acquired the analysis of metadiscoursive texts elaborated in digital environments. Pioneers in this sector have been Miller and Dawn (2004), Davies and Merchant (2007), Mortensen and Walker (2002), and, notably, Luzón (2006, 2010), who concentrated their investigation on digital genres and in particular on the academic blog ever since its appearance. Although scientifc interest was still centred on the academic world and how scholars engage with readers, how they disseminate results, express opinions and build an academic persona, from this moment, attention has also been paid to the role of digital technologies as the driving forces in disseminating scientifc knowledge and how information travels through the Web (Buehl, 2015). Studies have been then carried out, for example, about metadiscursive aspects on websites (González, 2005), open-source materials, podcasts (Pérez-Llantada, 2016), wikis (Kuteeva, 2011, 2016) and Tweets (Aitamurto & Varma, 2018; Sclafani, 2017; Zappavigna, 2018), as well as microblogs and blogs (Bondi, 2018; Kuteeva & Mauranen, 2018; Zou & Hyland, 2019).
2016; and Bondi, 2018) reveal the highly interactive quality of these digital genres, in which scientifc discourse is both popularised and democratised, and where, differently from any other academic genre, the author of the text is openly recognised as responsible for what has been written in the blog. As claimed by Zou and Hyland (2019), blogs allow to immediately enhance one’s visibility, construct one’s persona and disseminate one’s research work to a wider audience going beyond one’s disciplinary feld. Nevertheless, because of the immediacy of response and the uncertainty in the types of audience reached through these digital genres, blog authors rhetorically and linguistically repackage scientifc texts, adopting and implementing strategies of recontextualisation (Bondi, 2018; Puschmann, 2013; Yus, 2015), so that non-expert audiences can understand too (Campagna et al., 2012; Myers, 2010). In this recontextualisation process, authors carefully consider how to present material and what interactional strategies to use within the digital environment (Puschmann, 2013; Zou & Hyland, 2019). This specifc pragmatic goal is achieved with a type of ‘language in use’ that may confrm the ‘creative’ affordances of metadiscourse, as discussed above, in a digital environment that is widening the whole domain of academic and scientifc communication in ways that 20 years ago were unimaginable.
So far, only a few metadiscourse investigations have focused on the interpersonal dimension of academic discourses and how these are increasingly visible the more they become digitalised. Yus (2015), for example, underlines the diffculties academic digital writers face when trying to predict the audience’s background knowledge and the impulsivity of readers’ interpretations. He, therefore, compares academic discourse on the Web vs. offine to investigate the use and frequency of interpersonality markers in academic communication: as the text becomes more digitalised, common-ground markers seem to decrease, while similes, boosters and direct addresses to the audience increase. Interaction issues also emerge in Bondi’s (2018) empirical study about reader engagement markers. In her corpus-based examination of three economics blogs, the prominent use of (a) reader engagement markers, (b) self-mentions as well as other (c) textoriented and (d) action-oriented elements is a clear participant-oriented dimension of posts, justifed by the desire to guide readers through the text, making sure the argument is understood and the writer’s position and ideas are commonly shared along the whole spectrum of communication. Similarly, Zou and Hyland (2019) use the stance and engagement model (cf. Hyland, 2005) in their corpus-based analysis to research blog
L. D’ANGELO AND S. MACI
posts and traditional journal research articles: their results suggest that when academic research is recontextualised online, scholars create a different writer persona and adopt different rhetorical choices.
These metadiscoursive studies have been the frst ones to explore the complex way academic discourse is realised on digital media, along with the multiple facets of its genres and hybridised forms now available, which have affected the way Academia communicates and the way academic meaning is realised in a more widespread, less homogeneous, multimodal environment, steering away from the common notion of an academy perceived as an ‘ivory tower’, out of reach to a non-expert readership (Puschmann, 2013). In this regard, as digital and social media have acquired a more relevant role in our daily communication, academic (and non-academic) communication practices have consequently adjusted. Precisely because people create meaning through language and digital resources, it is nowadays evident that the communicative immediacy of digital media, alongside the spectrum of genres (and hybridised forms) they create, rule the way meaning-making practices in a multimodal environment are structured.
Six contributions in this direction are here contained, investigating progressively hybridised academic genres that have migrated—or are in the process of migrating—from analogue to digital format. What clearly emerges is that despite the ongoing and ever-increasing democratisation and popularisation of knowledge that are being boosted by digital technology, the changing conventions of asymmetric, peer-to-peer scientifc communication are still a favourite area of research for metadiscourse scholarship. Mauranen (Chap. 2), for example, after researching for years discourse refexivity in spoken dialogues and ascertaining that it diverges considerably from metadiscourse in the written mode, considers here research blog discussions, as they provide her with a combined perspective on discourse refexivity, one that is dialogic but also written. She fnds evidence that there is more open and direct evaluation in digital than spoken dialogues, especially when participants engage in debates and negotiate disagreement: a phenomenon that may only be interpreted by considering the specifc communicative affordances of online dialogicity. She then reveals the limitations of monologue-based models and calls for more adequate metadiscourse models to further the feld of study. Finally, she frmly believes that the greater explicitness found in digital forms of communication, driven by many lingua franca situations, offers an ideal opportunity for exploring metadiscourse as a potential discourse universal.
Using Hyland’s (2005) model, Donatella Malavasi (Chap. 4) contributes to research on blogs by exploring interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers in a selection of research articles and blog posts written by the Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman. In particular, with the support of corpus linguistic tools, a sample of scientifc papers and a collection of posts published on the blog ‘The Conscience of a Liberal’ are analysed in their metadiscourse devices. More to the point, the examination of some key aspects sheds light on the metadiscourse devices used by Krugman in blog posts vs. RAs to organise his texts and shape his arguments to the needs and expectations of two presumably different target readerships.
Ylva Biri’s (Chap. 7) corpus-based analysis examines instead the usage and functions of metadiscourse in English-speaking online communities. She recognises that different social networking sites (SNSs) have different technological features or affordances, which is why metadiscourse is here considered in different settings. A working metadiscourse framework is developed to illustrate how metadiscourse is used in 12 online communities, taken from 3 social media platforms—Twitter, Reddit and Tumblr— and 4 polarised political topics of interest are considered: alt-right, red pill, feminism and the resist movement.
Sancho-Guinda (Chap. 5) examines the visual abstract and its graphical format. The author considers the role of visual and flmic metadiscourses as ‘narrative transformers’ and regards ‘stylisation’ as a phenomenon interestingly capable of enriching but also hindering scientifc meaning. To this end, Sancho-Guinda comments on samples from science blog archives and JCR journals and draws on a mixed methodological framework, not only comprising Hyland’s well-known metadiscourse model but also incorporating stimuli from critical genre analysis, multimodal and visual analysis, social semiotics, narrative and positioning theories, and the conceptual theory of metaphor. Her eclectic contribution is particularly relevant, we believe, because it not only considers the regenring and transduction processes that scientifc information undergoes when it is transformed into a condensed visual narrative but also attempts to tackle and categorise visual metadiscourse, an area of research still under-represented (see, e.g. D’Angelo, 2016; D’Angelo, 2018; De Groot et al., 2016; Fechine & Pontes, 2012 & Kumpf, 2000) and which, in the times of increasing visualisation and digitalisation we are facing, has become a necessary avenue of research.
Delibegovic Džanic’ and Berberovic’s work (Chap. 6) solidly moves instead away from a scriptocentric tradition, contributing to the theory of
L. D’ANGELO AND S. MACI
metadiscourse and to our understanding of the role metadiscourse and related ‘meta’ phenomena may play in less researched digital forms of communication. They analyse here text-image advertisements with idiomatic expressions with the aim of, on the one hand, investigating how visual elements play a crucial role in understanding the cognitive and rhetorical functions of advertisements, and on the other hand, of establishing to what extent hidden cognitive mechanisms involved in the interpretation of advertising can be explained using conceptual blending theory. This leads to the idea that blending contributes to the creativity and effectiveness of pictorial advertisements. As with Sancho-Guinda’s work, this is a most welcome contribution, as it seeks to devise a much-needed framework of visual metadiscoursive elements that, especially in digital genres, represent signifcant meaning-making devices that cognitively and rhetorically complement the accompanying text.
Ädel’s (Chap. 3) contribution is particularly representative of the changes the feld has undergone and the dive into deep waters we are witnessing. In her work, we see her refexive model (Ädel, 2006) revisited and applied to a sample vlog (video blog), functioning as a case study. Through in-depth qualitative analysis, the uses of metadiscourse in the vlog are illustrated and neighbouring categories are pinpointed so that crucial delimitations and differences between metadiscourse and related phenomena emerge. What is particularly relevant here is that particular semiotic resources, such as paralinguistic and visual cues, are used to support the (verbal) metadiscourse investigated in vlogs. She coins the term ‘synchronous intertextuality’ to refer to how the intertext (in this case, a simulator game) is operating while the vlogger is interacting with it, revealing a very different type of intertextuality than the one we usually see in academic discourse.
We cannot but join Ädel when she concludes that a ‘new wave’ of metadiscourse studies is envisioned for the future, where the research focus moves more frmly from the non-propositional and interpersonal to the refexive. Such a move, we agree, would lead to a frmer grounding of metadiscourse in the theory of refexivity and to a deeper understanding of the sea change that, today more than ever, our culture is undergoing.
RefeRences
Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. John Benjamins.
Aitamurto, T., & Varma, A. (2018). The constructive role of journalism: Contentious metadiscourse on constructive journalism and solutions journalism. Journalism Practice, 12(6), 695–713.
Bondi, M. (2018). Try to prove me wrong: Dialogicity and audience involvement in economics blogs. Discourse, Context & Media, 24, 33–42.
Buehl, J. (2015). Revolution or evolution? Casing the impact of digital media on the rhetoric of science. In A. Gross & J. Buehl (Eds.), Science and the internet: Communicating knowledge in a digital age (pp. 1–10). Baywood.
Campagna, S., Garzone, G., Ilie, C., & Rowley-Jolivet, E. (Eds.). (2012). Evolving genres in web-mediated communication. Peter Lang.
D’Angelo, L. (2016). Academic posters: A textual and visual metadiscourse analysis. Peter Lang.
D’Angelo, L. (2018). Disciplinary cultures in academic posters: A textual and visual metadiscourse analysis. Lingue e linguaggi, 28, 69–83.
Davies, J., & Merchant, G. (2007). Looking from the inside out: Academic blogging as new literacy. In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (Eds.), A new literacies sampler (pp. 167–198). Peter Lang.
De Groot, E., Nickerson, C., Korzilius, H., & Gerritsen, M. (2016). Picture this: Developing a model for the analysis of visual metadiscourse. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 30(2), 165–201.
Fechine, L. A. R., & Pontes, A. L. (2012). The visual metadiscourse of the inserts of an English dictionary. CAL, 10(3), 294.
Garzone, G., Poncini, G., & Catenaccio, P. (Eds.). (2007). Multimodality in corporate communication: Web genres and discursive identity. Franco Angeli. González, R. A. (2005). Textual metadiscourse in commercial websites. Ibérica, 9, 33–52.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum. Jones, R. H., Chik, A., & Hafner, C. A. (Eds.). (2015). Discourse and digital practices: Doing discourse analysis in the digital age. Routledge.
Kumpf, E. P. (2000). Visual metadiscourse: Designing the considerate text. Technical Communication Quarterly, 9(4), 401–424.
Kuteeva, M. (2011). Wikis and academic writing: Changing the writer-reader relationship. English for Specifc Purposes, 30(1), 44–57.
Kuteeva, M. (2016). Research blogs, tweets, and wikis. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 433–445). Routledge.
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
constantly quotes the poet, and cites him as an authority on agriculture, is a striking fact. One instance will shew the deep veneration with which he regards the great master. In speaking[1068] of the attention to local qualities of climate and soil needed in choosing an estate, he quotes lines from the first Georgic, the matter of which is quite traditional, common property. But he speaks of Vergil (to name the poet[1069] was unnecessary) as a most realistic[1070] bard, to be trusted as an oracle. Nay, so irresistible is to him the influence of Vergil, that he must needs cast his own tenth book into hexameter verse: the subject of that book is gardens, a topic on which Vergil had confessedly[1071] not fully said his say. And yet in the treatment of the land-question there is a fundamental difference between the two writers. Columella’s system is based on slave labour organized to ensure the completest efficiency: Vergil practically ignores slavery altogether. Columella advises you to let land to tenant farmers whenever you cannot effectively superintend the working of slave-organizations under stewards: Vergil ignores this solution also, and seems vaguely to contemplate a return to the system of small farms owned and worked by free yeomen in an idealized past. Columella is concerned to see that capital invested in land is so employed as to bring in a good economic return: Vergil dreams of the revival of a failing race, and possible economic success and rustic wellbeing are to him not so much ends as means. The contrast is striking enough. In the chapter on Vergil I have already pointed out that the poet had at once captured the adoration of the Roman world. It was not only in quotations or allusions, or in the incense of praise, that his supremacy was held in evidence so long as Latin literature remained alive. His influence affected prose style also, and subtle reminiscences of Vergilian flavour maybe traced in Tacitus. But all this is very different from the practice of citing him as an authority on a special subject, as Columella did and the elder Pliny did after him.
I would venture to connect this practice with the Roman habit of viewing their own literature as inspired by Greek models and so
tending to move on parallel lines. Cicero was not content to be a Roman Demosthenes; he must needs try to be a Roman Plato too, if not also a Roman Aristotle. Now citation of the Homeric poems as a recognized authority on all manner of subjects, not to mention casual illustrations, runs through Greek literature. Plato and Aristotle are good instances. It is surely not surprising that we find Roman writers patriotically willing to cite their own great poet, more especially as the Georgicslay ready to hand. In the next generation after Columella, Quintilian framed his criticism[1072] of the two literatures (as food for oratorical students) on frankly parallel lines. Vergil is the pair to Homer: second to the prince of singers, but a good second: and he is quoted and cited throughout the treatise as Homer is in Aristotle’s Rhetoric. True, the cases are not really parallel. Whatever preexistent material may have served to build up the Homeric poems, they are at least not didactic poems, made up of precepts largely derived from technical writers, and refined into poetic form with mature and laborious skill. To quote the Georgics, not only for personal observation of facts but for guiding precepts, is often to quote a secondary authority in a noble dress, and serves but for adornment. But in such a consideration there would be nothing to discourage Roman literary men. To challenge Vergil’s authority on a rustic subject remained the prerogative of Seneca.
Additional note to page 263
Varro de lingua Latina VII § 105 says liber qui suas operas in servitutem pro pecunia quadam debebat dum solveret nexus vocatur , utabaere obaeratus. This antiquarian note is of interest as illustrating the meaning of operae, and the former position of the debtor as a temporary slave.
AGE OF THE FLAVIAN AND ANTONINE EMPERORS
XXXIV. GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
It is not easy to find a satisfactory line of division between the period of the Flavian emperors and that of the adoptive series that came after them. The Plebeian Flavians had no family claim, through birth or adoption, to a preeminent position in the Roman world, and the rise of Vespasian to power was indeed a revolution. Henceforth, though outward forms and machinery remained, the real control of the empire rested with those supported directly or indirectly by the great armies. But the sound administrative policy set going by the common sense of Vespasian long maintained the imperial fabric in strength, and it is commonly held that from 69 to 180 AD was the Empire’s golden age. Nevertheless its vitality was already ebbing, and the calamities that beset it in the days of Marcus Aurelius found it unable to renew its vigour after holding in check its barbarian invaders. The Flavian-Antonine period must be treated as one, and from the point of view of the present inquiry certain significant facts must always be borne in mind. The Italian element in the armies was becoming less and less. Military policy consisted chiefly in defence of the frontiers, for the annexations of Trajan were not lasting, and they exhausted strength needed for defence. It was an ominous sign that the Roman power of assimilation was failing. Mixed armies of imperfectly Romanized soldiery, whether as conquerors or as settlers, could not spread Roman civilization in the same thorough way as it had become at length established in Spain or southern Gaul. To spread it extensively and not intensively meant a weakening of Roman grasp; and at some points[1073] it seems as if
the influx of barbarism was felt to be a menace in time of peace, not effectively counteracted by the peaceful penetration of Rome.
Now, if the protection of Italy by chiefly alien swords was to relieve the imperial centre from the heavy blood-tax borne by it in the old days of Roman expansion, surely it remained an Italian function or duty to provide carriers[1074] of Roman civilization, that is, if border lands were to be solidly Romanized as a moral bulwark against barbarism. But this duty could only be performed by a healthy and vigorous Italy, and Italy[1075] was not healthy and vigorous. Internal security left the people free to go on in the same ways as they had now been following for generations, and those ways, as we have seen, did not tend to the revival of a free rural population. Country towns were not as yet in manifest decay, but there were now no imperial politics, and municipal politics, ever petty and self-regarding, offered no stimulus to arouse a larger and common interest. Municipalities looked for benefactors, and were still able to find them. In this period we meet with institutions of a charitable kind, some even promoted by the imperial government, for the benefit of orphans and children of the poor. This was a credit to the humanity of the age, but surely a palliative of social ailments, not a proof of sound condition. In Rome there was life, but it was cosmopolitan life. Rome was the capital of the Roman world, not of Italy. In the eyes of jealous patriots it seemed that what Rome herself needed was a thorough Romanizing. It was not from the great wicked city, thronged with adventurers[1076] of every sort, largely Oriental Greeks, and hordes of freedmen, that the better Roman influences could spread abroad. Nor were the old Provinces, such as Spain and southern Gaul, where Roman civilization had long been supreme, in a position to assimilate[1077] and Romanize the ruder border-lands by the Rhine and Danube. They had no energies to spare: moreover, they too depended on the central government, and the seat of that government was Rome.
Italy alone could have vitalized the empire by moral influence, creating in the vast fabric a spiritual unity, and making a great
machine into something more or less like a nation,—that is, if she had been qualified for acting such a part. But Italy had never been a nation herself. The result of the great Italian war of 90 and 89 BC had been to merge Italy in Rome, not Rome in Italy. Italians, now Romans, henceforth shared the exploitation of the subject countries and the hatred of oppressed peoples. But under the constitution of the Republic politics became more of a farce the more the franchise was extended, and the most obvious effect of Italian enfranchisement was to increase the number of those who directly or indirectly made a living out of provincial wrongs. The Provinces swarmed with bloodsuckers of every kind. The establishment of the Empire at length did something to relieve the sufferings of the Provinces. But it was found necessary to recognize Italy as a privileged imperial land. In modern times such privilege would take the form of political rights and responsibilities. But political life was dead, and privilege could only mean local liberties, exemption from burdens, and the like. And in the long run the maintenance or abolition of privilege would have to depend on the success or failure of the system. Now the emperors of the first two centuries of the Empire did their best to maintain the privileged position of Italy. But even in the time of Augustus it was already becoming clear that Romanized Italy depended on Rome and that Rome, so far as the Senate and Magistrates were concerned, could not provide for the efficient administration of Italy or even of Rome itself. Then began the long gradual process by which Italy, like the rest of the empire, passed more and more under the control of the imperial machine. In the period we are now considering this was steadily going on, for brief reactions, such as that under Nerva, did not really check it, and Italy was well on the way to become no more than a Province.
The feature of this period most important in connexion with the present inquiry is the evidence[1078] that emperors were as a rule painfully conscious of Italian decay. Alive to the dangers involved in its continuance, they accepted the responsibility of doing what they could to arrest it. Their efforts took various forms, chiefly (a) the direct encouragement of farming (b) relief of poverty (c) measures
for providing more rural population or preventing emigration of that still existing. It is evident that the aim was to place and keep more free rustics on the land. In the numerous allotments of land to discharged soldiers a number of odd pieces[1079] (subsiciva), not included in the lots assigned, were left over, and had been occupied by squatters. Vespasian, rigidly economical in the face of threatened state-bankruptcy, had the titles inquired into, and resumed and sold those pieces where no valid grant could be shewn. Either this was not fully carried out, or some squatters must have been allowed to hold on as ‘possessors,’ probably paying a quit-rent to the treasury. For Domitian[1080] found some such people still in occupation and converted their tenure into proprietorship, on the ground that long possession had established a prescriptive right. Nerva tried to go further[1081] by buying land and planting agricultural colonies: but little or nothing was really effected in his brief reign. In relief of poverty it was a notable extension to look beyond the city of Rome, where corn-doles had long existed, and continued to exist. The plan adopted was for the state to advance money at low rates of interest to landowners in municipal areas, and to let the interest received form a permanent endowment for the benefit of poor parents and orphans. We must remember that to have children born did not imply a legal obligation to rear them, and that the prospect of help from such funds was a distinct encouragement to do so. Whether any great results were achieved by this form of charity must remain doubtful: flattering assurances[1082] to Trajan on the point can no more be accepted without reserve than those addressed to Augustus on the success of his reforms, or to Domitian on his promotion of morality. But it seems certain that private charity was stimulated by imperial action, and that the total sums applied in this manner were very large. Begun by Nerva, carried out[1083] by Trajan, extended by Hadrian and Antoninus Pius, the control of these endowments was more centralized by Marcus. In his time great dearth in Italy had made distress more acute, and the hour was at hand when the inner disorders of the empire would cause all such permanent foundations to fail and disappear. They may well have relieved many individual
cases of indigence, but we can hardly suppose their general effect on the Italian population to have been a healthy one. They must have tended to deaden enterprise and relax self-help, for they were too much after the pauperizing model long established in Rome. The provision of cheap loan-capital for landowners may or may not have been a boon in the long run.
The increase of rustic population through excess of births over deaths could not be realized in a day, even if the measures taken to promote it were successful. So we find Trajan[1084] not only founding colonies in Italy but forbidding colonists to be drawn from Italy for settlement in the Provinces; a restriction said to have been[1085] disregarded by Marcus. But one important sequel of the frontier wars of Marcus, in which German mercenaries were employed, was the transplanting[1086] of large numbers of German captives into Italy. Such removals had occurred before, but seldom and on a small scale. This wholesale transplantation under Marcus made a precedent for many similar movements later on. It may be taken for granted that the emperor did not turn out Italians in order to find room for the new settlers. It is also probable that these were bound to military service. The great military colonies of later date, formed of whole tribes or nations settled near the frontiers, certainly held their lands on military tenure. Such was the system of frontier defence gradually forced upon Rome through the failure of native imperial forces sufficient for the purpose: and this failure was first conspicuous in Italy. Among the various measures taken by emperors to interest more persons in promoting Italian agriculture we may notice Trajan’s[1087] ordinance, that Provincials who aspired to become Roman Senators must shew themselves true children of Rome by investing one third of their property in Italian land. The order seems to have been operative, but the reduction[1088] of the fixed minimum proportion from ⅓ to ¼ by Marcus looks as if the first rule had been found too onerous. There is no reason to think that the state of rural Italy was materially bettered by these wellmeant efforts. And the introduction of barbarian settlers, who had to
be kept bound to the soil in order to be readily available when needed for military service, tended to give the rustic population a more and more stationary character. It was in fact becoming more usual to let farms to free coloni; but the coloni, though personally free, were losing freedom of movement.
NOTE ON EMIGRATION FROM ITALY.
In the Journal of Roman Studies (vol VIII) I have discussed the question whether the emigration from Italy to the Provinces was to a serious extent agricultural in character, and in particular whether we can believe it to have carried abroad real working rustics in large numbers. Are we to see in it an important effective cause of the falling-off of the free rustic population of Italy? That the volume of emigration was large may be freely granted; also that settlements of discharged soldiers took place from time to time. Nor does it seem doubtful that many of the emigrants became possessors of farmlands[1089] in the Provinces. But that such persons were working rustics, depending on their own labour, is by no means clear. And, if they were not, the fact of their holding land abroad does not bear directly on the decay of the working farmer class in Italy. That commerce and finance and exploitation in general were the main occupations of Italian[1090] emigrants, I do not think can be seriously doubted. And that many of them combined landholding with their other enterprises is probable enough.
Professor Reid kindly reminds me that soldiers from Italy, whose term of service expired while they were still in a Province, were apt to settle down there in considerable numbers. The case of Carteia in Spain is well known, and that of Avido, also in Spain, was probably of the same nature. These were not regular Colonies. So too in Africa Marius seems to have left behind him communities of soldiers not regularly organized[1091] as coloniae. When the town of Uchi Maius received the title of colonia from the emperor Severus, it called itself[1092] coloniaMariana, like the one founded by Marius in
Corsica. And the same title appears in the case[1093] of Thibari. With these African settlements we may connect the law carried by Saturninus in 100 BC to provide the veterans of Marius with allotments of land in Africa, on the scale of 100 iugerafor each man. If this record[1094] is to be trusted (and the doubtful points cannot be discussed here), the natural inference is that farms of considerable size are meant, for the working of which no small amount of labour would be required. Nor is this surprising, for the soldiers of Marius were at the time masters of the situation, and not likely to be content with small grants. Whether the allotments proposed were in Africa or in Cisalpine Gaul[1095] is not quite certain. Marius seems to have left Africa in the winter of 105-4 BC. Since then he had been engaged in the war with the northern barbarians, and the lands recovered from the invaders were in question. Still, the proposal may have referred to Africa, for it is certain that the connexion of Marius with that Province was remembered[1096] long after. The important point is that the persons to be gratified were not civilian peasants but discharged veterans of the New Model army, professionalized by Marius himself. Neither the retired professional mercenaries of Greco-Macedonian armies, nor the military colonists of Sulla, give us reason to believe that such men would regard hard and monotonous labour with their own hands as a suitable reward for the toils and perils of their years of military service. Surely they looked forward to a life of comparative ease, with slaves to labour under their orders. If they kept their hold on their farms, they would become persons of some importance in their own provincial neighbourhood. Such were the milites or veteraniwhom we find often mentioned under the later Empire: and these too were evidently not labourers but landlords and directors.
Therefore I hold that the class of men, many of them Italians by descent, whom we find holding land in various Provinces and living on the profits of the same, were mostly if not all either soldiersettlers or persons to whom landholding was one of several enterprises of exploitation. That the mere Italian peasant emigrated
in such numbers as seriously to promote the falling-off of the free rustic population of Italy, is a thesis that I cannot consider as proved or probable.
XXXV. MUSONIUS.
In earlier chapters I have found it necessary to examine the views of philosophers on the subject of agriculture and agricultural labour, holding it important to note the attitude of great thinkers towards these matters. And indeed a good deal is to be gleaned from Plato and Aristotle. Free speculations on the nature of the State included not only strictly political inquiries, but social and economic also. But in the Macedonian period, when Greek states no longer enjoyed unrestricted freedom of movement and policy, a change came over philosophy. The tendency of the schools that now shewed most vital energy, such as the Epicurean and Stoic, was to concern themselves with the Individual rather than the State. The nature of Man, and his possibilities of happiness, became more and more engrossing topics. As the political conditions under which men had to live were now manifestly imposed by circumstances over which the ordinary citizen had no control, the happiness of the Individual could no longer be dependent on success in political ambitions and the free play of civic life. It had to be sought in himself, independent of circumstances. The result was that bold questioning and the search for truth ceased to be the prime function of philosophic schools, and the formation of character took the first place. Hence the elaboration of systems meant to regulate a man’s life by implanting in him a fixed conception of the world in which he had to live, and his relation to the great universe of which he and his immediate surroundings formed a part. And this implied a movement which may be roughly described as from questioning to dogma. The teacher became more of a preacher, his disciples more of a congregation of the faithful; and more and more the efficiency of his ministrations came to depend on his own personal influence, which we often call magnetism.
When Greek literature and thought became firmly established in Rome during the second century BC, it was just this dogmatic treatment of moral questions that gave philosophy a hold on a people far more interested in conduct than in speculation. The Roman attempts, often clumsy enough, to translate principle into practice were, and continued to be, various in spirit and success. Stoicism in particular blended most readily with the harder and more virile types of Roman character, and found a peculiarly sympathetic reception among eminent lawyers. The reigns of the first emperors were not favourable to moral philosophy; but the accession of Nero set literature, and with it moralizing, in motion once more. A kind of eclectic Stoicism came into fashion, a Roman product, of which Seneca was the chief representative. A touch of timeserving was needed to adapt Greek theories for practical use in the world of imperial Rome. Seneca was both a courtier and a wealthy landowner, and was one of the victims of Nero’s tyranny. We have seen that while preaching Stoic doctrine, for instance on the relations of master and slave, he shews little interest in agriculture for its own sake or in the conditions of agricultural labour. It is interesting to contrast with his attitude that of another Stoic, a man of more uncompromising and consistent type, whose life was partly contemporaneous with that of Seneca, and who wrote only a few years later under the Flavian emperors.
Musonius[1097] Rufus, already a teacher of repute in Nero’s time, seems to have kept himself clear of conspiracies and intrigues, recognizing the necessity of the monarchy and devoting himself to his profession of moral guide to young men. But any great reputation was dangerous in Nero’s later years, and a pretext was found for banishing the philosopher in 65. Under Galba he returned to Rome, still convinced of the efficacy of moral suasion, witnessed the bloody successions of emperors in 69, and risked his life in an illtimed effort to stay the advance of Vespasian’s soldiery by discoursing on the blessings of peace. Vespasian seems to have allowed him to remain in Rome, and he is said to have been tutor to Titus. Yet he had not shrunk from bringing to justice an informer
guilty of the judicial murder of a brother Stoic, and he was generally regarded as the noblest of Roman teachers, both in principles and in practice. He has been spoken of as a forerunner of Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius. Evidently no timeserver, he seems to have made allowance for human needs and human weakness in the application of strict moral rules. It is a great pity that we have no complete authentic works of his surviving: but some of the reports by a pupil or pupils have come down to us. One of these extracts[1098] is so complete in itself, and so striking in its view of agriculture and agricultural labour, that I have translated it here. We are to bear in mind that the opinions expressed in it belong to a time when a small number of great landlords owned a large part (and that the most attractive) of Italy, and vast estates in the provinces as well. It is the luxurious and slave-ridden world of Petronius and Seneca that we must keep before us in considering the advice of Musonius; advice which we cannot simply ignore, however much we may see in this good man a voice crying in the wilderness.
‘There is also another resource[1099] , nowise inferior to the above, one that might reasonably be deemed superior to it, at least for a man of strong body: I mean that derived from the land, whether the farmer owns it or not. For we see that there are many who, though cultivating land owned by the state[1100] or by other persons, are yet able to support not only themselves but wives and children; while there are some who by the devoted industry of their own hands[1101] attain to great abundance in this way of life. For the earth responds most fairly and justly to the care bestowed upon her, returning manifold what she receives and providing a plenty of all things necessary to life for him that will labour; and she does it consistently with a man’s self-respect and dignity. For nobody, other than an effeminate weakling, would describe any of the operations of husbandry as disgraceful or incompatible with manly excellence. Are not planting ploughing vine-dressing honourable works? And sowing reaping threshing, are not these all liberal pursuits, suited to good men? Nay, the shepherd’s life, if it did not degrade Hesiod or
hinder him from winning divine favour and poetic renown, neither will it hinder others. For my part, I hold this to be the best of all the tasks comprised in husbandry, inasmuch as it affords the soul more leisure for pondering and investigating what concerns mental culture. For all tasks that bend the body and keep it fully on the strain do at the same time force the soul to give them its whole attention, or nearly so, sharing as it does the strain of the body: but all those that permit the body to escape excessive strain do not prevent the soul from reasoning out important questions and from improving its own wisdom by such reasonings, a result which is the special aim of every philosopher. This is why I set such special value on the art of shepherds. If however a man does[1102] combine tillage with philosophy, I hold no other life comparable with this, and no other means of livelihood preferable to it. Surely it is more according to nature to get your sustenance from Earth, our nurse and mother, than from some other source. Surely it is more manly[1103] to live on a farm than to sit idle in a city. Surely out-ofdoor pursuits are healthier than sheltered retirement. Which, pray, is the freeman’s choice, to meet his needs by receiving from others, or by contrivance of his own? Why, it is thought far more dignified to be able to satisfy your own requirements unaided than with aid of others. So true is it that to live by husbandry, of course with due respect[1104] to what is good and honourable, is beautiful and conducive to happiness and divine favour. Hence it was that the god (Delphic Apollo) proclaimed[1105] that Myson of Chenae was a wise man and greeted Aglaus of Psophis as a happy one; for these both led rustic lives, working with their own hands and not spending their time in cities. Surely then it is a worthy ambition to follow these men’s example and devote ourselves to husbandry in earnest.
‘Some may think it a monstrous notion that a man of educative power, qualified to lead youths on to philosophy, should till the soil and do bodily labour like a rustic. And, if it had been the fact that tilling the soil hinders the pursuit of philosophy or the lending help to others in that pursuit, the notion would have been monstrous
indeed. But, as things are, if young men could see their teacher at work in the country, demonstrating in practice the principle to which reason guides us, namely that bodily toil and suffering are preferable to dependence on others for our food, I think it would be more helpful to them than attendance at his lectures in town. What is to hinder the pupil, while he works at his teacher’s side, from catching his utterances on self-control or justice or fortitude? For the right pursuit of philosophy is not promoted by much talking, and young men are under no necessity to learn off the mass of speculation on these topics, an accomplishment of which the Professors[1106] are so vain. For such discourses are indeed sufficient to use up a man’s lifetime: but it is possible to pick up the most indispensable and useful points even when one is engaged in the work of husbandry, especially as the work will not be unceasing but admits periods of rest. Now I am well aware that few will be willing to receive instruction by this method: but it is better that the majority of youths who profess the pursuit of philosophy should never attend a philosopher at all, I mean those unsound effeminate creatures whose presence at the classes is a stain upon the name of philosophy. For of those that have a genuine love of philosophy not one would be unwilling to spend his time with a good man on a farm, aye though that farm were one most difficult[1107] to work; seeing that he would reap great advantages from this employment. He would have the company of his teacher night and day; he would be removed from the evils of city life, which are a stumbling-block to the pursuit of philosophy; his conduct, good or bad, could not escape notice (and nothing benefits a pupil more than this); moreover, to be under the eye of a good man when eating and drinking and sleeping is a great benefit.’
At this point the writer digresses for a moment to quote some lines of Theognis and to interpret them in a sense favourable to his own views. He then continues ‘And let no one say that husbandry is a hindrance to learning or teaching. Surely it is not so, if we reflect that under these conditions the pupil enjoys most fully the company of his teacher while the teacher has the fullest control of his pupil.
Such then being the state of the case, it is clear that of the philosopher’s resources none is more useful or more becoming than that drawn from husbandry.’
In this extract three points simply stand for principles dear to all sincere Stoics; (1) the duty and benefit of living ‘according to Nature,’ (2) the duty and benefit of self-sufficiency and not depending on the support of others, (3) the duty and satisfaction of continued self-improvement. Consistent practice on these lines would go far to produce the Stoic ideal, the Wise Man, happy and perfect in his assurance and dignity. But the attempt to combine all these in a ‘back to the land’ scheme of moral betterment has surely in it a marked personal note. It is the dream of a singular man in the surroundings of a rotten civilization; a civilization more rotten, and a dream more utopian, than the dreamer could possibly know. Aspirations towards a healthy outdoor life had been felt by many before Musonius. Admiration of rustic pursuits was no new thing, but it was generally freedom from worries, with the occasional diversions of the chase, that were attractive to the town-bred man. Ploughing and digging, and the responsible charge of flocks and herds, had long been almost entirely left to slaves, and Musonius is driven to confess that few youths of the class from which he drew pupils would be willing to undertake such occupations. It was useless to urge that bodily labour is not degrading: that it is exhausting, and engrosses the whole attention, he could not deny. He falls back on pastoral duties as light and allowing leisure for serious discourse. The suggestion seems unreal, though sincere, when we remember that Italian shepherds had to fight wolves and brigands. Moreover, the preference of grazing to tillage was in no small degree due to the fewer persons employed in it, and the stockmen were a notoriously rough class. Even the idealized shepherds of the bucolic poets exhibit a coarseness not congenial to conversation savouring of virtue. But to a Stoic preacher who could try to pacify a licentious soldiery the notion of using pastoral pursuits as a means to moral excellence may well have seemed a reasonable proposal.
It is at least clear that the futility of philosophy as administered by lecturers in Rome had made a strong impression on Musonius. The fashionable company to whom the discourses were addressed, whether they for the moment shed some of their self-satisfaction or not, were seldom or never induced to remodel their worthless lives. So Musonius urges them to break away from solemn trifling and take to rustic labour. He probably chose this remedy as one specially Roman, following the tradition of the heroes of ancient Rome. But no artificial revival of this kind was possible, whatever his generous optimism might say. His contemporary the elder Pliny, who was content to glorify the vanished past and deplore the present, had a truer appreciation of the facts. Farm-work as a means of bringing personal influence to bear, treating body and mind together, a sort of ‘Wisdom while you dig,’ was in such a society a merely fantastic proposal. The importance of farming and food-production was a commonplace, but the vocation of Musonius was moralizing and character-production. There is no reason to think that he had any practical knowledge of agriculture. His austere life proves nothing of the kind. The only remark that shews acquaintance with conditions of landholding is his reference to the farmers who make a living on hired land. And this is in too general terms to have any historical value.
XXXVI. PLINY THE ELDER.
Among the writers of this period who refer to agricultural matters the most important is the elder Pliny, who contrived in a life of public service[1108] in various departments to amass a prodigious quantity of miscellaneous learning and to write many erudite works. His naturalis historia, an extraordinary compilation of encyclopaedic scope, contains numerous references to agriculture, particularly in the eighteenth book. He collected and repeated the gleanings from his omnivorous reading, and the result is more remarkable for variety and bulk than for choice and digestion. As a recorder he is helpful, preserving as he does a vast number of details, some not
