ABSTRACT
Sacrifice was central to Roman religion, and Valerius Maximus does not neglect its rhetorical potential.37 His anecdote of Mucius, not yet “Lefty” (Scaevola), provides a subtle example of how he can manipulate ritual language for rhetorical point (3.3.1). The botched assassination of Lars Porsenna is a story often retold: the would-be assassin’s right hand thrust into flames that burnt upon the intended victim’s altar, Lars Porsenna’s subsequent release of Mucius, etc.38 Of interest here is the conduct of the immortal gods in the ritual of sacrifice and their implied approval of virtuous conduct. Mucius was “caught in the midst of an act” termed “as pious as it was brave” (inter molitionem pii pariter ac fortis propositi oppressus; 3.3.1). Livy’s longer account, on the other hand, presents a war of Roman youth against the king (2.12). Livy’s Mucius’ actions are brave and Roman (2.12.9).39 If Valerius’ Mucius is pious and brave, what constituted the piety of a would-be assassin who before the very altars attacked a king engaged in sacrificing at the altars of the immortal gods (immolantem … ante altaria; 3.3.1)? One might imagine that gods could look with unfavorable mien upon assassins disrupting their feast. These qualms, justified or not, are answered by Valerian rhetoric. Mucius, who disrupted the ritual, finishes it, and, according to Valerius, offers his right arm to the gods as a substitution for the king he failed to furnish in his aborted ministry:
perosus enim, credo, dexteram suam, quod eius ministerio in caede regis uti nequisset, iniectam foculo exuri passus est.
