I first brought up the volones in Post 41. I’ve since talked about them in posts 61-4.
At the beginning, I had mentioned how the volones were interesting because Livy explicitly mentioned that they were freed as a reward for their service to Rome. However, I hadn’t realized until today that Livy turns this event into a rather dramatic story.
In 214 BCE, Tiberius Gracchus (not the man murdered for his agricultural reforms; that was one his descendants), was in charge of a number of legions, including the volones. Livy apparently approved of these slaves’ loyalty to Rome because he mentions that they “had preferred to earn their freedom quietly rather than openly demand it” (24.14 trans. Yardley). Such a description alone should make us start thinking about what kind of literary precedence Livy was drawing on when he describes these slaves, as it has a lot of similarities to the “good” slaves in Roman comedy (for example, Grumio in the Mostellaria).
The rest of the episode then has a folktale-esque feel to it: Livy explains that Gracchus is impressed with his slave soldiers and so asks permission of the Roman government to promise them freedom. He gets news that his request has been granted on the eve of a big battle with the Carthaginians in Beneventum (southern Italy). According to Livy, Gracchus then makes the following deal with the slaves: “Any of them bringing back the head of an enemy he [Gracchus] would immediately declare a free man, but anyone who gave ground he would punish as a slave – so each man’s fate was in his own hands” (24.14). However, Gracchus runs into problems the next day as the slaves take his commands too literally: they prioritize cutting off the heads of dead soldiers over anything else in battle. Livy explains that “Gracchus promptly had the signal given for the men to throw down the heads and attack the enemy, saying that their courage was sufficiently clear and easy to see, and that these stouthearted men’s freedom was not in doubt” (24.15). This new position galvanizes the slaves and they thoroughly rout the enemy; Livy takes time to explain the losses were higher than expected for that particular enemy army (24.16).
However, the volones are still suspicious that they will get the wrong end of Gracchus’ mercy after the battle: 4,000 of them remove themselves from the other legions and Gracchus has to order his army to bring them back into the fold (24.16). He then announces that they will all be freed “whether they deserved it or not” (24.16). The punishment for the cowards is that they are required to eat all of their meals standing for the rest of the campaign (24.17).
The aspect of the story that I find particularly interesting is the slaves’ overly literal interpretation of Gracchus’ command. There are jokes about slaves using this strategy as a form of slow down strike in both Greek and Roman literature, the Greek ones involving the famous Greek slave Aesop. I’m also intrigued with how Livy creates suspense about the future of these slaves, and as a result, he ends up writing from the focalization of the slaves rather than from the perspective of Gracchus.
At the beginning, I had mentioned how the volones were interesting because Livy explicitly mentioned that they were freed as a reward for their service to Rome. However, I hadn’t realized until today that Livy turns this event into a rather dramatic story.
In 214 BCE, Tiberius Gracchus (not the man murdered for his agricultural reforms; that was one his descendants), was in charge of a number of legions, including the volones. Livy apparently approved of these slaves’ loyalty to Rome because he mentions that they “had preferred to earn their freedom quietly rather than openly demand it” (24.14 trans. Yardley). Such a description alone should make us start thinking about what kind of literary precedence Livy was drawing on when he describes these slaves, as it has a lot of similarities to the “good” slaves in Roman comedy (for example, Grumio in the Mostellaria).
The rest of the episode then has a folktale-esque feel to it: Livy explains that Gracchus is impressed with his slave soldiers and so asks permission of the Roman government to promise them freedom. He gets news that his request has been granted on the eve of a big battle with the Carthaginians in Beneventum (southern Italy). According to Livy, Gracchus then makes the following deal with the slaves: “Any of them bringing back the head of an enemy he [Gracchus] would immediately declare a free man, but anyone who gave ground he would punish as a slave – so each man’s fate was in his own hands” (24.14). However, Gracchus runs into problems the next day as the slaves take his commands too literally: they prioritize cutting off the heads of dead soldiers over anything else in battle. Livy explains that “Gracchus promptly had the signal given for the men to throw down the heads and attack the enemy, saying that their courage was sufficiently clear and easy to see, and that these stouthearted men’s freedom was not in doubt” (24.15). This new position galvanizes the slaves and they thoroughly rout the enemy; Livy takes time to explain the losses were higher than expected for that particular enemy army (24.16).
However, the volones are still suspicious that they will get the wrong end of Gracchus’ mercy after the battle: 4,000 of them remove themselves from the other legions and Gracchus has to order his army to bring them back into the fold (24.16). He then announces that they will all be freed “whether they deserved it or not” (24.16). The punishment for the cowards is that they are required to eat all of their meals standing for the rest of the campaign (24.17).
The aspect of the story that I find particularly interesting is the slaves’ overly literal interpretation of Gracchus’ command. There are jokes about slaves using this strategy as a form of slow down strike in both Greek and Roman literature, the Greek ones involving the famous Greek slave Aesop. I’m also intrigued with how Livy creates suspense about the future of these slaves, and as a result, he ends up writing from the focalization of the slaves rather than from the perspective of Gracchus.