Nikola Golubovic, Reed College
Most discussions of enslaved labor in ancient education do not go far beyond noting that some teachers were formerly or even currently enslaved (Wrenhaven). The figures of the paedagogus and the wet-nurse are recurrent points of interest: the enslaved female who looked after infants and toddlers and the enslaved male who accompanied boys to school and sometimes provided basic instruction are taken as emblematic of the contributions of enslaved people to Greek and Roman education (Young, Aly). When it comes to education outside the home, in noting the servile origin of some grammarians and rhetoricians, Suetonius underscores the widespread prejudice against waged workers. While discussions of servile literary workers are now gaining traction in scholarship, what is still lacking is a consideration of enslaved laborers inside the school. The emphasis on the strong personality of the magister in the sources obscures the contributions of those other workers who kept the wheels of the educational enterprise turning. This paper is a prolegomenon and an exhortation to the study of these people and their work.
Traces of the magister’s enslaved assistants can be found in some ancient texts (sella tibi erit in ludo tamquam hypodidascalo proxima, Cic. Fam. 9.18.4; Menelaus etiam antescholanus, Petr. Sat. 8.1; etc.). But the scarcity of direct references need not discourage further investigation: omissions can also be revealing. Going off of recent work on Greek and Latin stenographers (Moss, Cribiore), I probe three passages from texts that originated in the schoolroom.
In his famous preface, Quintilian clearly indicates the presence of stenographers in his lecture-hall (alterum sermonem … pueri quibus id praestabatur exceperant, alterum … quantum notando consequi potuerant, interceptum … vulgaverant. 7). Similarly, he complains that his speeches were written down and disseminated (neglegentia excipientium in quaestum notariorum corruptae sunt, 7.2.24).
In the preface to the Discourses of Epictetus, Arrian explains that the work that follows was written down during Epictetus’ lectures. Arrian suggests that he did the writing himself (ἐπειράθην αὐτοῖς ὀνόμασιν ὡς οἷόν τε ἦν γραψάμενος … διαφυλάξαι), but he is also anxious to persuade that the discourses accurately represent the words of his teacher. I contend that this passage tries to obscure the presence of stenographers because the use of enslaved labor would have complicated Arrian’s authorial claims about the Discourses and his position as the sole heir to Epictetus’ philosophical legacy.
Quintilian and Arrian are both vague on the presence of stenographers in their classrooms. Even if the concept of authorship depended less on originality and individual agency than on authorization or assigning of an authorial “stamp,” these authors were aware (as Quintilian openly states) that stenography might yield imperfect results, which might compromise the authority of the text and of themselves as authors. The contributions of enslaved workers to Greek and Roman education must be considered beyond the technical and ask what the ideological implications of the their involvement in schooling are, how the agency of these workers was coopted by teachers and students, and what particular contributions we can uncover.