Abstract

Marcus Sergius Silus and Lucius Sergius Catilina are among the best-known members of the patrician gens Sergia. Their reputations in the ancient tradition could hardly be more different: Silus, according to Pliny the Elder and Solinus, was the most valiant warrior in Roman history, Catilina came to be remembered as one of its most notorious villains. The question is not only how far this stark opposition, firmly entrenched in the ancient tradition, is justified, but also how Catilina himself drew upon the memory of his ancestor in his political self-presentation. The former question has received some attention in scholarship on Sergius Silus, with scholars noting several parallels between the two men; the latter, however, has yet to be examined. Catilina was well acquainted with his great-grandfather's heroic achievements, preserved both in Roman collective memory and within the gens Sergia itself. One important indication of the continuing prominence of Silus within this family tradition is the issue, in the late second or early first century BCE, of a silver denarius bearing his image. Great-grandfather and great-grandson shared several notable traits, including physical endurance, strength of character, perseverance, and a propensity for risk-taking. It is therefore plausible that Catilina regarded Silus as a model from an early age and consciously sought to emulate him. In his political career, Catilina appears to have invoked the memory of his heroic ancestor in different ways. In 64 BCE, while competing with Cicero and members of the nobilitas, he could draw on the antiquity of his lineage and on the services his ancestors had rendered to the Roman people, well-established elements of aristocratic political self-presentation. In 63 BCE, however, Marcus Sergius may have acquired a different significance as an ancestral exemplar: a man who had overcome his rivals' opposition and ultimately reached the peak of power. For Pliny and Solinus, the crucial distinction between the two Sergii lay in the ends they pursued. The great-grandfather devoted his courage and abilities to his fellow citizens and the interests of the res publica, whereas the great-grandson was driven by personal ambition, which ultimately made him an enemy of res publica libera. Once this difference in purpose is set aside, however, the remarkable similarities between Silus and Catilina come into sharper focus — similarities of which Catilina himself could hardly have been unaware. This perspective reveals a more nuanced image of Catilina. It allows us to move beyond the conventional portrayal of an impoverished aristocrat sustained by memories of his family's former glory. This, in turn, adds another dimension to our understanding of Roman political life in the 60s BCE.