The Lex Fannia, passed in 161 BC, limited the number of guests and amount of wealth to be spent on a banquet; 10 asses a day, with exceptions on religious days (Culham) . The Lex Licinia limited the consumption of dried meat and fish, and encouraged use of products of the vine and orchard. and the Lex Didia, passed in 143, extended previous laws to all of Italy (Edwards). This extension to Italy could be interpreted a number of ways. Post expansion, it may have been a strategic move to ‘Romanise’ the luxurious foreigners. Alternatively, many romans were stationed as governors of provinces outside of the city, and this allowed the sumptuary laws to also be exercised over them. Indeed, these provinces had their own aristocracies,…show more content… Rosavich argues that the impractically of these laws alludes to their symbolic nature; luxury was a political issue. The question of moral decline maintains continuity throughout roman historiography. Livy hypothesizes that it began in 187 with the introduction of eastern vices, and Polybius argues that the war with Perseus in 168 was the beginning of decline. The modern perception of political, social and moral as separate entities did not apply to the Roman view of society. Morality was at the core of society- politics were morality, and morality was politics. Luxury was perceived as a corrosive agent against morality and Roman values; private luxury harms the community, while public extravagance honours the republic. Rosavich highlights that the rise of a plebeian elite challenged patrician lineage; ancestry, was no longer the definition of elite. Rather, funding public games were used as a tool for political advancement, inspiring gratitude in the citizenry for magistrates who funded extravagant events. This political strategy eventually escalated into somewhat of a competition, and wealthy magistrates were soon driving themselves into…show more content… The continuity of this strong military ethos and dedication to public welfare among the aristocracy can be traced all the way back to the 5th century when migrating people inflicted great pressure. The concept of pleasing citizens to gain vote was also evident in the patrones and clientes system; however, gaining loyalty now involved vast amounts of wealth for public means. Previously, aristocratic rule was secured by their embracing of the values of their class, but these values were evolving. Rosenstein observes that in the 1st Century, Publius Licinius Crassus Dives wrote about Sempronus Asellio, describing his ‘five greatest and chief things’- he was the richest, most noble, most eloquent, most learned in the law, and the chief priest. There is an emphasis on wealth and oratory, but no mention of military glory. Citizens were now worthy of being aristocrats when these values were demonstrated. Polybius underscores that the glorious deeds of ancestors no longer reflects well on aristocrats unless they match them. Sallust comments that Ceasar’s glory was won trough military service, while Cato’s was unsought, won through his choice of lifestyle. Individual aristocrats tried to gain more wealth than their counterparts, threatening to overturn the coherence of the ruling class. Ties were forged between plebeians and
