- chapter 21: Slavery and manumission –
explicitly stated in the case of the troubles at Setia in 198 bc), which resulted in large
groups of enslaved persons of homogeneous ethnic origin fi nding themselves at work in
the same places (exactly the circumstances Aristotle considered most dangerous). The
mention of a servile bellum in Arretium in the elogium of Aulus Spurinna is somehow
more puzzling; the fi rst editor, Mario Torelli,^19 thought that the period of activity of this
prominent Tarquinian magistrate should be set around the middle-fourth century bc;
his intervention should therefore be considered in a framework of outright Tarquinian
hegemony in the whole of Etruria. Archaeological evidence suggests that at some time
before this period Tarquinii had conquered stretches of territory originally belonging
to the neighboring cities of Caere and Volsinii; the prominence of Tarquinii in the wars
against Rome is explicitly stated in historical sources, at least until the last decade of the
fourth century bc, when it was for the fi rst time heavily defeated, never to recover its
previous standing. Moreover, a brief entry in Livy (10.3.2) recording internal disturbances
in Arretium leading to a Roman intervention in 302 bc, could suggest the existence of
mounting social tensions around those years. Mauro Cristofani, relying on the mention
of a king of Caere in the same inscription, suggested that the actions of Aulus Spurinna
should be pushed back at least a couple of centuries; epigraphic evidence, discovered only
after Torelli’s edition of the elogia, shows that monarchy had already disappeared in Caere
by the middle-fourth century bc.^20 If this high dating of Aulus Spurinna is accepted, the
“slave war” should therefore be considered something similar to what happened in high
republican Rome, when slaves were employed more than once in the context of attempted
coups, which some abridged narratives hastily defi ned as outright bella servilia.^21
The great revolt which broke out in Volsinii in 265 bc was something completely
different. The sources about this momentous event sketch it as a coup by elements labeled
by most of the Latin authors as “freedpersons”, “slaves” in other narratives, fi rst of all the
Greek one of Zonaras (eventually achieving their freedom by themselves, once they had
attained full control of the government); in both traditions, the coup was fostered by the
fact that the ruling classes of Volsinii had previously committed signifi cant positions in
state administration, and even in army command, to persons enjoying a subordinate status.
The intervention by the Roman state, following a request by the dispossessed aristocrats,
required a major siege by a consular army, resulting in pillage and destruction of the
city, massacre of all rebels, and resettlement of the survivors in the new Volsinii on the
shores of the Bolsena lake.^22 The Romans were obviously preoccupied with maintaining
peace in central Italy while preparing the gigantic effort of the war against Carthage,
and could not tolerate a radical change in policy of an allied state. What kind of people
are to be understood under the defi nition of “slaves” or “freedpersons” is not entirely
clear. It has often been thought that the narrative could fi t well into the framework
of Etruscan helotry reconstructed by nineteenth-century scholars, disregarding the fact
that in societies exploiting slave institutions of this kind a mass enfranchisement was
never remotely contemplated,^23 let alone commitment of governmental or military
responsibilities. A high danger of ferocious uprisings was always present, as clearly stated
by Aristotle. Present-day scholars prefer to interpret these “slaves” as plebeians living in
a condition of legal marginality, whose real status was crucially misunderstood by Greek
and Roman historians;^24 this would justify the apparent extent of the uprising. On the
other hand, it should not be forgotten that the new Volsinii was a large and prosperous
city, and its inscriptions reveal a signifi cant continuity in family names with the old
one. It is clear that enough of the inhabitants survived the massacre following the siege