Proof page of an article on 'Editing', reading:
Rome was a slave society; accordingly, its literature was sustained by enslaved workers. The unspoken backdrop to the individual authors who move through the canon of Greco-Roman antiquity—the Ciceros, Vergils, Ovids, and Plinies who sit on our bookshelves and monopolize our university courses—was a gargantuan quantity of labor performed by unfree literary workers. The influence of these laborers on Roman literature went far beyond “mechanical” or “technical” assistance—unusually for slave societies, where literacy is more often with- held from the enslaved as a means of control. In Rome, enslaved workers’ intellectual expertise was as valuable to their enslavers, or even more so, than their performance of physical labor and routine tasks.
Nonetheless, if we were to seek a history of enslaved editorial labor from Roman sources, we would come away all but empty-handed. As Sean Gurd has shown, discussions of the process of revision in Roman antiquity almost all center around the interactions of equal-status Roman men of the wealthy enslaving classes. For these authors, editing becomes a medium of social exchange and community formation, linked directly to an individual author’s tactics of navigating the social and political pressures of his day. Cicero’s idealization of the republic is mirrored in his attempts to instantiate a community of letters driven by common goals and mutual critique; Pliny the Younger speaks openly of editing other elite Romans’ work as a means of social climbing; and paranoid Horace portrays self-revision as [...]
a nice way to start a Monday morning: going over proofs for my chapter in 'Writing, Enslavement and Power in the Roman Mediterranean'!