In exemplum 4.2.3 of his Facta et dicta memorabilia, Valerius Maximus recounts the reconciliation of the elder Scipio Africanus and Tiberius Gracchus, the father of the Gracchi:Footnote 1
clarum etiam in Africano superiore ac Ti. Graccho depositarum inimicitiarum exemplum, si quidem ad cuius mensae sacra odio dissidentes uenerant, ab ea et amicitia et adfinitate iuncti discesserunt: non contentus enim Scipio auctore senatu in Capitolio Iouis epulo cum Graccho concordiam communicasse, filiam quoque ei Corneliam protinus ibi despondit.
The scene described by Valerius is clear. Despite their personal enmities, the two men had come together on the Capitoline Hill to partake in the epulum Iouis, the public banquet in honour of Jupiter.Footnote 2 At the request of the Senate, they put aside their hostilities, with Scipio going as far as betrothing his own daughter to Gracchus. As it stands, however, the exemplum contains a textual issue. From a grammatical as well as semantic perspective, the preserved reading ad cuius mensae sacra appears odd, as the pronoun cuius has no obvious referent. It might therefore be worthwhile to consider emending the problematic reading ad cuius mensae sacra to ad Iouis mensae sacra.
The phrase mensae sacra, which is not attested before Valerius, can be found on four other occasions within the Facta et dicta memorabilia (2.1.8, 5.3.3, 8.15.7, 9.2.2). In all of these instances, it seems to denote a certain ritualized and divinely sanctioned agreement to honour the principles of friendship and concord around the banquet table.Footnote 3 Only at Val. Max. 4.2.3, however, is the phrase specified further by a genitive attribute. The problem is that, without an obvious referent, the preserved pronoun cuius is difficult to maintain. Given the continuation of the second part of Valerius’ exemplum and the fact that Aulus Gellius (NA 12.8.1–4) makes so much of the reconciliation happening at the epulum Iouis (by comparison with the somewhat vague version at Livy 38.57.5), an emendation of the reading ad cuius mensae sacra to ad Iouis mensae sacra instead seems far more appealing.Footnote 4
From a palaeographical perspective, it certainly is not impossible that the reading Iouis was corrupted to cuius by an inattentive scribe. The letter combinations ui and iu can be rather difficult to distinguish in minuscule script, where they are usually modified by serifs at the top and bottom (cf. Val. Max. 1.6.ext.1 iuxta indem [AL; Lc indum] for uix tandem [G]; 6.3.6 iniuriis [AL] for in uiris [AcLcG]), and the common error of u for o is also attested at Val. Max. 1.8.4 (Curiolanum [α] for Coriolanum [dett.]). Within this context, it does not seem inconceivable that a scribe misread the initial i (perhaps with a particularly prominent serif at the bottom) for c, a mistake easily made (for a similar case, see the different readings preserved at Plin. Ep. 1.9.1 iunctisque vs cunctisque).
However, there is further philological evidence which might support the emendation proposed here. On the only other occasion on which Valerius specifically talks about anyone's table in his work, the owner's name goes in the genitive before mensa (9.1.1 Oratae mensae). In terms of word order, the reading ad Iouis mensae sacra would, therefore, be entirely feasible. The double genitive within the ad … sacra might be seen as stylistically awkward, but there can be no doubt that the proposed emendation is far less problematic than the extant text.Footnote 5
And so the key question that remains is whether the term Iouis mensa was ever used to refer to the epulum Iouis. While there is no thoroughly conclusive evidence, a passage in the elder Pliny may hold an important clue. At HN 25.105, discussing the various purposes of the verbena plant, Pliny explains that, among other things, the herb was used to sweep ‘Jupiter's table’: hac Iouis mensa uerritur.Footnote 6 Within the passage, the term Iouis mensa clearly seems to denote a table used for the purpose of religious offerings to Jupiter (for mensa in the sense of ‘sacrificial table’, see TLL 8.743.35–61). The presence of such a table would, without doubt, have been implicit in the celebration of the epulum Iouis, which revolved around a lectisternium for the Capitoline Triad (cf. Val. Max. 2.1.2 nam Iouis epulo ipse in lectulum, Iuno et Minerua in sellas ad cenam inuitabantur). However, it may not even be necessary to establish a direct link between the term Iouis mensa and a physical table that could have been used in the epulum Iouis at Rome. In light of the deliberate variation in terminology at Gell. NA 12.8.2–3 (epulum Ioui libaretur; in conuiuio Iouis Optimi Maximi), it may be more likely that Valerius is effectively using the phrase Iouis mensae as a synonym for epulum Iouis (for mensa as a synonym of conuiuium or cena, see TLL 8.741.55–742.11).
Pliny's confident use of Iouis mensa, without the need to provide more specific information, certainly suggests that his early imperial Roman readership would easily have been able to understand the precise implications of this term without further explanation. It may therefore be surmised that Valerius’ readers too would have been able immediately to connect the Iouis mensa with the epulum Iouis, which clearly stands at the core of this exemplum. Valerius’ initial reference to the Iouis mensae sacra could thus be seen as the setting of the scene for the exemplary reconciliation of Scipio and Gracchus, the religious significance of which is then further highlighted by a second reference to the epulum Iouis.
Open access
