Search Results
50 items found for ""
- Methodology | Enslaved Christians
Methodology Drawing upon both recent work by Saidiya Hartman, Marissa Fuentes, Stephanie Smallwood and others on the history of Atlantic slavery, as well as studies in book history, religious studies, and classics, this project is an attempt to document the role of enslaved workers in production of the literature of the early church.[1] It aims to gather and assemble the epigraphic, literary, documentary, and artistic evidence for enslaved literate workers in the 1st-2nd centuries CE. The material contained here is deliberately maximalist. This means that certain categories will be blurry and that individuals who might not have been enslaved will be included. Identifying Enslaved Individuals The social status of individual workers can sometimes be difficult to parse. Sometime s the social status of an individual is explicit, on other occasions it is obscured or assumed by an ancient auth or. The difficulty is only exacerbated when dealing with Christian sources as tradition has tended to elevate the pedigree of named members of the Jesus movement. Often the status of a worker is ascertained on the basis of (1) their name (2) their occupation. Each aspect of this method has problems. While some names (e.g. “Epaphroditus” meaning “charming” or "attractive") are unmistakably “slavish,” there are always exceptions, and general principles vary depending on chronological period and region.[2] So too, while some professions (e.g. copying) were considered dishonorable and associated with servile workers, there were situations where freeborn individuals would engage in these tasks. In keeping with the principles of this project we include all individuals who might reasonably have been said to be enslaved or formerly enslaved (freed person). This includes those identified based on their name and/or profession. The rationale for each individual's identification as an enslaved or potentially enslaved person is explained in the commentary on each entry. Enslaved and Formerly Enslaved The database includes people who had been manumitted (freed) as well as those who are explicitly identified as enslaved. It is sometimes difficult to identify the stage in a person’s life when they were manumitted. Moreover, those who had been manumitted often continued to live in the homes of their former enslavers and were subjected to the same forms of pressure and abuse. The Language of Enslavement In the past forty years the study of slavery has come a long way. Following the work of Foreman, et al , we see the identification of a person as a “slave” as dehumanizing and essentializing. Thus, we prefer to use the terms “enslaved” and “enslavement.”[3] Biblical Texts and their Modification Unless otherwise noted Greek texts of the New Testament come from Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece (28th ed. 2012). The official text for this can be found here . English translations are drawn from the New Revised Standard Version, though the translation is often modified. As the work of Clarice Martin has shown, translations of Biblical texts have selectively and strategically translated the language of enslavement in order to obscure and erase enslaved identity. Translating enslaved person (doulos) as “servant” obscures the brutal fact that enslavement was not a matter of choice and “minimizes the full psychological weight of the institution of slavery itself.”[4] The erasure of enslaved identity is rooted in the understanding that there is something shameful about the experience of being victimized and, thus, tacitly assumes the inferiority of enslaved people. We have chosen to preserve the language of enslavement even in situations where the language might be understood to be metaphorical. Christian Identity The language of “Christian” poses some problems. First, it is not always possible to identify the religious orientation of an individual worker. Non-Christian enslaved workers often lived in the households of freeborn Christians (e.g. the enslaved workers noted in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.1.14). Second, even if an enslaved worker is known to have been Christian their “conversion” may have been involuntary or coerced. Finally, for most of the first century, followers of Jesus were known simply as Jews or followers of the Way. Many of the individuals included here may simply have identified as Jewish. We do not wish to erase their identities by identifying them as Christian. Nevertheless, and with a view to plans to broaden the database to include enslaved non-Christians we use the keyword “Christian” as an identifier in entries for first century members of the Jesus movement. Defining Role and Job Titles Wherever possible the project identifies people by their role or title (e.g. “secretary” or “reader”). In instances where (1) a worker’s role is unclear or (2) the individual performs multiple literate roles they are identified simply as “literate workers.” Timothy, for example, is a co-author in some letters attributed to Paul and as a messenger in others. Enslaved workers in Roman households often served a variety of roles regardless of their formal title. This is true, for example, of an enslaved man named Diphilus who worked in the household of Crassus in Rome: he is identified both as a “writer” and a “reader” (Cicero, De Orat. 1.136). Anonymity Some of the entries include anonymous individuals whose presence and role can only be inferred from primary materials. These people are listed as "Anonymous" with the relevant primary evidence following. It is, of course, impossible to know exactly who these people were, but in light of recent work erasure of enslaved workers from ancient texts by Brendon Reay, Sarah Blake, Joseph Howley, and Candida Moss and in keeping with the maximalist goals of this project they are included here.[5] GENDER We have included gender as a category of analysis in each entry. Alongside the traditionally recognized genders of “Male” and “Female” we have included “Unknown” and “Non-Normative.” Included under “Non-Normative” both are those individuals whose gender performance is suggestive of non-normative gender and those whose bodies had been modified by force (i.e. “Eunuchs”). In the case of those whose bodies had been forcibly modified, we do not wish to obscure either the violence of this practice, or its many medical risks. Notes [1] Saidiya V. Hartman, “Venus in Two Acts,” Small Axe: A Caribbean Journal of Criticism 12.2 (2008): 1–14; Hartman, Lose Your Mother: A Journey Along the Atlantic Slave Route (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008), 16; Hartman, Scenes of Subjection: Terror, Slavery, and Self-Making in Nineteenth-Century America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997); Marisa J. Fuentes, Dispossessed Lives: Enslaved Women, Violence, and the Archive (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016); and David Kazanjian, “Freedom’s Surprise: Two Paths Through Slavery’s Archives,” History of the Present: A Journal of Critical History 6.2 (2016): 133-145; Stephanie Smallwood, “The Politics of the Archive and History’s Accountability to the Enslaved,” History of the Present 6.2 (2016): 117-32. [2] See, for example, Christer Bruun, “Greek or Latin? The Owner’s Choice of Names for vernae in Rome,” in Roman Slavery and Roman Material Culture, ed. Michelle George (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013), 19–42. [3] P. Gabrielle Foreman, et al., “Writing about Slavery/Teaching About Slavery: This Might Help,” Community-sourced document, Accessed November 20, 2020. https://naacpculpeper.org/resources/writing-about-slavery-this-might-help/ . [4] Clarice J. Martin, “Womanist Interpretations of the New Testament: The Quest for Holistic and Inclusive Translation and Interpretation,” in I Found God in Me: A Womanist Biblical Hermeneutics Reader, ed. Mitzi J. Smith (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2015), 19–41 [25]. [5] Brendon Reay, “Agriculture, Writing, and Cato’s Aristocratic Self-Fashioning,” Classical Antiquity 24.2 (2005): 331–61; Sarah Blake, “Now You See Them: Slaves and Other Objects as Elements of the Roman Master,” Helios 39.2 (2012): 193–211; Blake, “In Manus: Pliny’s Letters and the Arts of Mastery,” in Roman Literary Cultures: Domestic Politics, Revolutionary Poetics, Civic Spectacle, ed. A. Keith and J. Edmondson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2016), 89–107; Joseph A. Howley, “In Rome,” in Further Reading, edited by Matthew Rubery and Leah Price (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), 15–27; Candida R. Moss, “Between the Lines: Looking for the Contributions of Enslaved Literate Laborers in a Second-Century Text (P. Berol. 11632),” SLA 5.3 (2021): 432–52
- 404 | Enslaved Christians
There’s Nothing Here... We can’t find the page you’re looking for. Check the URL, or head back home. Go Home
- 404 | Enslaved Christians
There’s Nothing Here... We can’t find the page you’re looking for. Check the URL, or head back home. Go Home
- 404 | Enslaved Christians
There’s Nothing Here... We can’t find the page you’re looking for. Check the URL, or head back home. Go Home
- 404 | Enslaved Christians
There’s Nothing Here... We can’t find the page you’re looking for. Check the URL, or head back home. Go Home
- 404 | Enslaved Christians
There’s Nothing Here... We can’t find the page you’re looking for. Check the URL, or head back home. Go Home
- Literate Workers | Enslaved Christians
Literate Workers “Slavery,” Rex Winsbury explains, was “the enabling infrastructure of Roman Literature.”[1] From composition to publication and distribution it was enslaved and formerly enslaved workers who were responsible for a great deal of the physical and cognitive work involved in the writing, copying, reading, and transportation of ancient literature.[2] While in English “author” usually denotes the person who came up with the ideas for physically composed (by hand with pen and paper or on a typewriter, computer, tablet, or phone) a particular text the Latin word auctor does not mean the same thing.[3] The Latin auctor might mean the author of a text, but this does not mean the author physically held the pen and it was often used in a more general sense to refer to someone who is an authority or who has authority. The close association of authorship and authority means that an author might be automatically assumed to be someone of high status (i.e. someone freeborn with authority). The differences between modern and ancient authorship become particularly clear when we turn to the wide range of figures involved both in what we might call the writing process. Whether or not a text had a named author there might also have been a secretary writing down the author’s words. That is, taking dictation. Dictation could be taken down in shorthand by a specialist in tachygraphy (sometimes also called stenography) or it could be taken down in longhand. One early Christian text, the Shepherd of Hermas refers to someone taking down a text syllable by syllable, but this was not normal practice as it made the process extremely lengthy. While anyone who was literate might theoretically serve as a secretary, shorthand was a reading technology that was associated with enslaved workers. Once a text had been composed it would need to be copied. Depending on the text’s length and purpose, copying might be performed by the secretary who took dictation, by an enslaved worker visiting from another household, or by a professional copyist who worked in a bookstore. When texts were disseminated, they often moved by literate messenger. If the text was a letter, they might be responsible for performing (i.e. reading) the letter aloud to its recipient(s) and for answering questions about its contents. If the text was a long literary work or treatise and the sender was very wealthy, the enslaved worker might even be gifted alongside the book as a kind of interpretive guide. While these roles are often distinguished by separate titles, on which see below, a single person might perform a variety of roles. A man named Diphilus, for example, is named as the “scribe and reader” (scriptor et lector ) of Crassus. So, too, a secretary might also be a copyist, messenger, and reader. People utilized enslaved literate workers for a variety of reasons: because they themselves were illiterate; because physical impairments liked vision loss prevented them from reading and writing themselves; because the utilization of personnel enabled them to consult texts while they were composing; and because it was easier than performing this work themselves. Certain tasks, like reading at night or copying long texts, were a strain on the body. For those who could afford it, it was preferable to outsource their bookwork. Dio Chrysostom notes that it was much better to be read to than to read oneself. The extant literary and epigraphical evidence uses a wide variety of terminology to refer to the roles played by various workers in the textual industry. In some regions and periods these titles would also be used of high-status individuals. In Egypt, for example, priests often also played the role of “scribe.” We should not assume, however, that those with lofty literate titles always did the work.[4] Apollonos, a translator (hērmeneutēs / ἑρμ ηνευτὴς) mentioned in several Egyptian papyri, was also identified as “illiterate” (P. Cair. Zen. I 59065, P. Ryl. IV 563, PSI IV 409). Recent scholarship at the intersection of book history and classics suggests that enslaved and formerly enslaved literate workers made substantive contributions to the meaning of the texts that they worked on.[5] This would make these individuals active participants in the production of Roman literature. Greek and Roman Terminology: amanuensis a general term used for secretaries who performed a variety of duties. Philologically the word refers to the extension of a person’s hand (manus) and is, thus, deeply embedded in an enslaving mindset that saw people as body parts. ἀναγνώστης/ lector a “reader” who reads a text aloud. The term was used both might be an unofficial reader called upon to read in the moment or a professional reader who performed texts for reading events in public or private. βιβλιοπώλης bookseller or bookshop owner. ἑρμηνευτὴς / hērmeneutēs “translator” or “interpreter.” Translators played an important role in military affairs, the preparation of legal documents, and the oral interpretation of written documents. γραμμᾰτεύς (grammateus) a secretary or scribe. librarius from liber meaning “book.” A librarius might be responsible for any aspect of bookwork including reading, composition, and copying. It might refer to a secretary or, in some periods, a bookseller or library worker. notarius shorthand note-take or speedwriter. Someone to whom words are dictated. scriba: someone who writes, but not usually an author. More commonly this term referred to someone in charge of public records or accounts. scriptor : this term was used for someone who composes work, but it often meant someone who writes things down. That is, a secretary, a scribe or potentially a copyist. Notes: 1. Rex Winsbury, The Roman Book (London: Duckworth, 2009), 79. 2. On enslaved literate workers see Winsbury, The Roman Book, 79–85; R. J. Starr, “Reading Aloud: Lectores and Roman Reading,” Classical Journal 86/3 (1991) 337–43; William Fitzgerald, Slavery and the Roman Literary Imagination (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000); Robert Darnton, “What is the History of Books?,” Daedalus 111/3 (1982) 65–84; Thomas Habinek, “Slavery and Class,” in ed. Stephen Harrison, A Companion to Latin Literature (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005), 385–93; Joseph A. Howley, “In Ancient Rome,” in eds. Matthew Rubery and Leah Price, Further Reading (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), 15–27. 3. Things get blurry when we consider that English speakers often talk about someone being the author of an idea without necessarily writing anything down. 4. Herbert C. Youtie, “ὑπογραφεύς: The Social Impact of Illiteracy in Graeco-Roman Egypt,” ZPE 17 (1975) 201-221. 5. Sarah Blake, “Now You See Them: Slaves and Other Objects as Elements of the Roman Master,” Helios 39.2 (2012): 193–211; idem, “In Manus: Pliny’s Letters and the Arts of Mastery,” in Roman Literary Cultures: Domestic Politics, Revolutionary Poetics, Civic Spectacle, ed. A. Keith and J. Edmondson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2016), 89–107.
- 404 | Enslaved Christians
There’s Nothing Here... We can’t find the page you’re looking for. Check the URL, or head back home. Go Home
- 404 | Enslaved Christians
There’s Nothing Here... We can’t find the page you’re looking for. Check the URL, or head back home. Go Home
- 404 | Enslaved Christians
There’s Nothing Here... We can’t find the page you’re looking for. Check the URL, or head back home. Go Home
- Blog/Posts
Index Achaicus (1 Cor. 16:17) Read Here Alexamenos (Graf. Pal. I.246) Read Here Anonymous Assistants (Luke 1:1-4) Read Here Anonymous Copyists (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 6.23) Read Here Anonymous Female Calligraphers (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.23.1-2) Read Here Anonymous Reader (Acts of Peter 20-21) Read Here Anonymous Scribe (Mark 13:14) Read Here Anonymous Secretary (Gal. 6:11) Read Here Anonymous Shorthand Writers (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.23.1-2) Read Here Burrhus (Ign. Phild. 11; Ign. Eph.2; Ign. Smyr. 12) Read Here Claudius Ephebus (1 Clem 65.1) Read Here Clement (Herm. Vis. 2) Read Here Crescens (Polycarp, Phil. 14) Read Here Crocus (Ign. Eph 2 and Rom. 10) Read Here Epaphroditus (Phil 2 and 4) Read Here Euelpistus (Acts of Justin B 4.3) Read Here Evaristus (MPol 20) Read Here Fortunatus (1 Clem 65.1) Read Here Fortunatus (1 Cor 16:17) Read Here Gaius (MPol 22) Read Here Load More