In 211 BCE, the Romans regained control over Capua, an Italian city home to some of the Samnite people. While we tend of think of Rome as synonymous with Italy, during the Roman Republican period, Rome and Italy were two very different ideas that overlapped on the same geography. Much of Italy was inhabited by people like the Etruscans, the Oscans or the Samnites. All of these people negotiated different kinds of relationships with the Romans, shaped in part by their geography and their military power. The Samnites had very little love for the Romans, and Livy portrays them as particularly eager to side with Hannibal against Rome.
I mention this as background to the description of the particular slave of a Samnite family, as such information indicates how Livy’s description of Manus’ manumission is very much connected to the politics of 210 BCE.
Manus was a slave who was freed under unusual circumstances. At the beginning of 210 BCE, there was a large fire in Rome. Livy reports that it was certainly a case of arson because the fire broke out in multiple places simultaneously. The Roman government offered the standard reward for information to help find the culprits: free men get money, slaves get freedom. Livy then explains what happens to Manus:
“A slave belonging to the Calavii family of Capua – his name was Manus – was induced by the reward to denounce his masters as well as five young noblemen of Capua whose fathers had been beheaded by Quintus Fulvius. He claimed they were responsible for the fire, and added that they were going to set others at various places if they were not arrested. Arrested they were, they and their slaves. At first some effort was made to discredit the informer and his information. He had been punished with a whipping the day before, they said, and had run away from his masters; and, being angry and irresponsible, he had fabricated this charge out of what was simply an accident. But when the charge was brought against them in the presence of their accuser, and when the process of interrogating their henchmen in the Forum, they all confessed, and the masters and their slave accomplices alike were executed. The informant was granted his freedom and 20,000 asses.” (26.27 trans. Yardley)
First, it should be noted that by “interrogating their henchmen”, Livy means that the Romans tortured the slave suspects, as that was the only way that a slave’s testimony could be legally entered into a court record. What does strike me as unusual is that the slave got to witness the examination of the accused. Of the top of my head I can’t think of any other examples of a slave assuming such a role in a courtroom. What does not strike me as unusual is that the Romans would be very happy to blame this case of arson on the Samnites: Manus definitely knew how to read the Roman political situation.
I mention this as background to the description of the particular slave of a Samnite family, as such information indicates how Livy’s description of Manus’ manumission is very much connected to the politics of 210 BCE.
Manus was a slave who was freed under unusual circumstances. At the beginning of 210 BCE, there was a large fire in Rome. Livy reports that it was certainly a case of arson because the fire broke out in multiple places simultaneously. The Roman government offered the standard reward for information to help find the culprits: free men get money, slaves get freedom. Livy then explains what happens to Manus:
“A slave belonging to the Calavii family of Capua – his name was Manus – was induced by the reward to denounce his masters as well as five young noblemen of Capua whose fathers had been beheaded by Quintus Fulvius. He claimed they were responsible for the fire, and added that they were going to set others at various places if they were not arrested. Arrested they were, they and their slaves. At first some effort was made to discredit the informer and his information. He had been punished with a whipping the day before, they said, and had run away from his masters; and, being angry and irresponsible, he had fabricated this charge out of what was simply an accident. But when the charge was brought against them in the presence of their accuser, and when the process of interrogating their henchmen in the Forum, they all confessed, and the masters and their slave accomplices alike were executed. The informant was granted his freedom and 20,000 asses.” (26.27 trans. Yardley)
First, it should be noted that by “interrogating their henchmen”, Livy means that the Romans tortured the slave suspects, as that was the only way that a slave’s testimony could be legally entered into a court record. What does strike me as unusual is that the slave got to witness the examination of the accused. Of the top of my head I can’t think of any other examples of a slave assuming such a role in a courtroom. What does not strike me as unusual is that the Romans would be very happy to blame this case of arson on the Samnites: Manus definitely knew how to read the Roman political situation.