We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 July 2015
The phrase sacra mensae appears in only a select number of instances from the first century a.d. onwards. This paper seeks to demonstrate that references to sacra mensae are not coincidental, and that they were employed deliberately by authors such as Valerius Maximus and, after him, Quintilian, Tacitus and Seneca, based on an assumed shared understanding of their significance on the part of Roman audiences. Although it appears across a variety of literary works and in a range of contexts, the phrase does not seem to have been used in reference to a specific rite or rites performed at the table. Instead, sacra mensae appears to have been used primarily in a metaphorical sense, designed to epitomize the customs and respect attached to dining in Roman culture. Religion certainly played an important part in creating the aura surrounding the table, which was subject to various rituals and superstitions that were discussed by ancient authors. However, beyond the sphere of religion there was the equally important social emphasis on dining, which enforced notions of conviviality and personal obligation between hosts and guests. Disregard of such traditions came to be identified as a hallmark of tyranny, which provided the writers of the Principate with an opportunity to use the sacra mensae as a powerful literary device against those who failed to respect established customs of hospitality.
I would like to thank Mark Bradley, John Drinkwater, Dunstan Lowe, Marcello Nobili and Nick Wilshere, as well as Bruce Gibson and the anonymous CQ referee, for their helpful observations and advice in preparing this paper. All abbreviations follow those set out in the OCD4. Translations provided throughout are my own.
1 For example, Plin. HN 28.26-8; Plut. Quaest. Rom. 64.
2 Livy 23.9.4; Hor. Sat. 2.8; Plin. Ep. 1.15, 2.6; Juv. Sat. 5, esp. 12–19, 111–13; D'Arms, J.H., ‘Control, companionship, and clientela: some functions of the Roman communal meal’, EMC 28 (1984), 327–48Google Scholar.
3 A. Themann-Steinke, Valerius Maximus: ein Kommentar zum zweiten Buch der Facta et Dicta memorabilia (Trier, 2008), 140 lists the five cases (Val. Max. 2.1.8, 4.2.3, 5.3.3, 8.15.7, 9.2.2), noting only that the term does not appear in the work of Cicero and seems to belong firmly within the literature of the early Principate. References to the sacred mensa appear in earlier authors, but typically in reference to festival tables or the altars on which offerings are made to the gods themselves: Naev. Bellum Punicum 1, fr. 2; Varro, Ling. 5.123; Verg. Aen. 11.738. Cf. Val. Flacc. Arg. 3.117–18, 5.580; Sen. Ben. 4.38.2; Macrob. Sat. 3.11.5–6; Serv. ad Aen. 8.279; G. Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Römer (Munich, 1912), 429, 475.
4 Cic. Brut. 307; Vell. Pat. 2.22; Plut. Mar. 44; Flor. 2.9; App. B Civ. 1.72.
5 Flor. 2.9.14; Luc. 2.121-4; Rawson, E., ‘Sallust on the eighties?’, CQ 37 (1987), 163–80, at 167CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Lucan also implies the corruption of both religion and dining through his description of the head being placed, still dripping with blood, upon a festa mensa. E. Fantham, Lucan De Bello Civili Book II (Cambridge, 1992), 101 highlights the importance of an earlier reference by Lucan (2.113) to the unnamed soldier who carries the head, being ashamed to walk ‘empty-handed’ (uacua … manu), which she takes to be an allusion to ‘the guest's obligation to bring a contribution to a feast … The analogy becomes literal when the soldier brings Antonius’ head as offering to Marius’ feast’; cf. Conte, G.B., ‘La guerra civile nella rievocazione del popolo: Lucano II.67-233’, Maia 20 (1968), 224–53, at 228–9Google Scholar. The idea of guests coming ‘empty handed’ is hinted at as early as Plaut. Truc. 97, and may refer more generally to acts of reciprocity (but also to guests who steal from their hosts). Cf. Mart. 6.72.5; Sen. Brev. 14.5.
6 Plut. Mar. 44.1–4. Hunger and dining appear to be recurring motifs in the ancient accounts of Marius’ purge, even appearing in works as late as those of Orosius and Aurelius Victor: Oros. 5.19.23; Aur. Vic. Caes. 36.9.
7 B.S. Hook, ‘Tyranny and cannibalism: the Thyestes theme in Greek and Roman literature’ (Diss., Duke University, 1992), 9–58; id., ‘Oedipus and Thyestes among the philosophers: incest and cannibalism in Plato, Diogenes, and Zeno’, CPh 100 (2005), 17–40 Google Scholar; C. Edwards, The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome (Cambridge, 1993), 179; M. Beer, Taste or Taboo: Dietary Choices in Antiquity (Totnes, 2012), 117–21. For the unnatural appetites of Marius, and the links between cannibalism and acts of viewing, see Leigh, M., ‘Varius Rufus, Thyestes and the appetites of Antony’, PCPhS 42 (1996), 171–97, at 178–80Google Scholar. Leigh highlights the links between Antony's treatment of victims during the proscriptions of 43 b.c. and the earlier actions of Marius and Sulla, in which eating and the dining table remained essential components in illustrating Antony's unnatural appetites. Cf. Sen. Ep. 83.25; Sen. Suas. 6.7; Dio 47.8.1–2.
8 Dunkle, J.R., ‘The Greek tyrant and Roman political invective of the late Republic’, TAPhA 98 (1967), 151–71Google Scholar, esp. 159–60, 169–70; id., ‘The rhetorical tyrant in Roman historiography: Sallust, Livy and Tacitus’, CW 65 (1971), 12–20, esp. 14–15Google Scholar. More generally, see Lanciotti, S., ‘Silla e la tipologia del tiranno nella letteratura latina repubblicana, I’, QS 3 (1977), 129–53Google Scholar; id., ‘Silla e la tipologia del tiranno nella letteratura latina repubblicana, II’, QS 4 (1978), 191–225 Google Scholar.
9 Cf. Leigh (n. 7), 181. The viewing of death or cruel spectacles is, itself, a recurring and much-explored aspect of tyranny across Latin literature: Borzsák, I., ‘ Spectaculum – Ein Motiv der “tragischen Geschichtsschreibung” bei Livius und Tacitus’, ACD 9 (1973), 57–67 Google Scholar, esp. 64–6; Keitel, E., ‘ Foedum speculatum and related motifs in Tacitus’ Histories II-III’, RhM 135 (1992), 342–51Google Scholar, esp. 350–1; M. Leigh, Lucan: Spectacle and Engagement (Oxford, 1997), 292–306; Lovatt, H., ‘Competing endings: re-reading the end of the Thebaid through Lucan’, Ramus 28 (1999), 126–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 130–1; Manolaraki, E., ‘A picture worth a thousand words: revisiting Bedriacum (Tacitus Histories 2.70)’, CPh 100 (2005), 243–67Google Scholar, esp. 249–52; E. Keitel, ‘Feast your eyes on this: Vitellius as stock tyrant (Tac. Hist. 3.36–39)’, in J. Marincola (ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography (Oxford, 2007), 2.441–6. On the wider literary significance and symbolism of decapitation, see J.-L. Voisin, ‘Les Romains, chasseurs des têtes’, in Du châtiment dans la cité: supplices corporels et peine de mort dans le monde antique (Rome, 1984), 241–93. Also, G. Paul, ‘Symposia and Deipna in Plutarch's Lives and in other historical writings’, in W.J. Slater (ed.), Dining in a Classical Context (Ann Arbor, 1991), 161–9, at 164-6; R. Ash, ‘Severed heads: individual portraits and irrational forces in Plutarch's Galba and Otho’, in J. Mossman (ed.), Plutarch and his Intellectual World (Chippenham, 1997), 189–214, esp. 196–200; A. Richlin, ‘Cicero's head’, in J.I. Porter (ed.), Constructions of the Classical Body (Ann Arbor, 1999), 190–211, at 198–200.
10 H.-F. Mueller, Roman Religion in Valerius Maximus (London, 2002), 129–30. Mueller places particular stress on the use of laetus, ‘a word that in sacrifice signifies “of happy omen”’. Marius’ disregard of piety and regard for religious institutions is also emphasized by Carney, T.F., ‘The picture of Marius in Valerius Maximus’, RhM 105 (1962), 289–337, at 312Google Scholar.
11 E. Fantham, Roman Literary Culture: From Cicero to Apuleius (London, 1996), 132–3.
12 M. von Albrecht, A History of Roman Literature: From Livius Andronicus to Boethius, 2 vols. (Leiden, 1996), 1076; J. Harrisson, Dreams and Dreaming in the Roman Empire: Cultural Memory and Imagination (Bristol, 2013), 85–8. Thurn, N., ‘Der Aufbau der Exemplasammlung des Valerius Maximus’, Hermes 129 (2001), 79–94 Google Scholar takes the argument even further, however, going so far as to suggest a complex literary structure that was designed to reflect the separate stages of Roman life from childhood to old age. More generally, on Valerius’ style and sources, see Maslakov, G., ‘Valerius Maximus and Roman historiography: a study of the exempla tradition’, ANRW 2.32.1 (1984), 437–96Google Scholar, esp. 437–57 (with bibliography); von Albrecht (this n.), 1074–8.
13 On the various moralizing aims that run throughout Valerius Maximus’ work, see C. Skidmore, Practical Ethics for Roman Gentlemen: The Work of Valerius Maximus (Exeter, 1996), 53–82; Thurn (n. 12), esp. 87–94; Langlands, R., ‘Reading for the moral in Valerius Maximus: the case of seueritas ’, CCJ 54 (2008), 160–85Google Scholar.
14 Festus, s.v. publica sacra; Tert. De Idol. 10.3; W. Warde Fowler, The Religious Experience of the Roman People from the Earliest Times to the Age of Augustus (London, 2011), 418; G. Dumézil, Archaic Roman Religion (trans. P. Krapp, 2 vols.) (Chicago, 1970), 405–6, 617; H.H. Scullard, Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic (London, 1981), 74–6; D. Sabbatucci, La religione di Roma antica dal calendario festivo all'ordine cosmico (Milan, 1988), 73–4; T. Köves-Zulauf, Römische Geburtsriten (Munich, 1990), 274–5; Donahue, J.F., ‘Toward a typology of Roman public feasting’, AJPh 124 (2003), 423–41Google Scholar, at 433; M. Labate, ‘Tra Grecia e Roma: l'identità culturale augustea nei Fasti di Ovidio’, in R. Gazich (ed.), Fecunda licentia: tradizione e innovazione in Ovidio elegiaco (Milan, 2003), 71–118, at 110; J. Scheid, Quand faire, c'est croire: les rites sacrificiels des Romains (Paris, 2005), 167–88, esp. 181; I. Buttitta, I morti e il grano: tempi del lavoro e ritmi della festa (Rome, 2006), 117–18; R.J. Littlewood, A Commentary on Ovid's Fasti, Book 6 (Oxford, 2006), 152, 268; A. Hilali, ‘Les repas funéraires: un témoignage d'une dynamique socio-culturelle en Afrique romaine’, in O. Hekster, S. Schmidt-Hofner and C. Witschel (edd.), Ritual Dynamics and Religious Change in the Roman Empire (Leiden, 2009), 269–84, esp. 278–9; J. Rüpke, The Roman Calendar from Numa to Constantine: Time, History, and the Fasti (trans. D.M.B. Richardson) (Chichester, 2011), 72, 75. OLD and OLD 2 s.v. Caristia assume a link with χαριστεῖα, which fits well with the occasion of both a religious festival and a shared meal. K. Latte, Römische Religionsgeschichte (Munich, 1960), 274 highlights the potential linguistic overlap and stresses the need for society to have such a festival within the wider celebrations in honour of the ancestral dead.
15 Ov. Fast. 2.617–30. Cf. McDonough, C.M., ‘The hag and the household gods: silence, speech, and the family in mid-February (Ovid Fasti 2.533–638)’, CPh 99 (2004), 354–69Google Scholar, esp. 362–8.
16 Quint. Decl. 321.20–2 ut seuera nobis antiquitas tradidit, infestos animos placauere mensae, et homines qui inter se armis atque exercitibus conflixerant tuti tamen iacuere media cenae fide; see C.J. Bannon, The Brothers of Romulus: Fraternal Pietas in Roman Law, Literature, and Society (Princeton, 1997), 72–4. Quintilian also makes reference to the decoration of the images of the gods with garlands as part of the celebration. This does not seem to refer to a specific ritual connected with sacra mensae, but is instead part of the general celebrations associated with the conuiuium. Livy 5.13.6–8 describes acts of reconciliation within the lectisternium ritual, which once again sees enemies brought together through dining; D'Arms (n. 2), 335. Cf. K.M.D. Dunbabin and W.J. Slater, ‘Roman dining’, in M. Peachin (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World (Oxford, 2011), 438–66, at 463.
17 Tac. Ann. 13.17.
18 Ibid. 13.16. Cf. H.S. Nielsen, ‘Roman children at mealtimes’, in I. Nielsen and H.S. Nielsen (edd.), Meals in a Social Context: Aspects of the Communal Meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World (Aarhus, 1998), 56–66, at 58.
19 See n. 9. Also Tac. Ann. 14.57, 14.59 on Nero's joy at the sight of the heads of C. Plautus and Faustus Sulla. Much attention has been paid to the role of dining and banquets in representations of tyranny, and especially in the characterisation of Nero. Cf. J. Goddard, ‘The tyrant at table’, in J. Elsner and J. Masters (edd.), Reflections of Nero: Culture, History and Representations (London, 1994), 67–79; J.F. Donahue, The Roman Community at Table During the Principate (Ann Arbor, 2004), 67–8; Richardson-Hay, C., ‘Dinner at Seneca's table: the philosophy of food’, G&R 56 (2009), 71–96 Google Scholar; Beer (n. 7), 119.
20 Raccanelli, R., ‘ Cara cognatio: la tradizione di una festa tra propinqui’, QUCC 53 (1996), 27–57 Google Scholar, esp. 37–41. Cf. C. Henriksén, A Commentary on Martial Epigrams Book 9 (Oxford, 2012), 232–7. Ovid, Fast. 2.637–8 also incorporates prayers for the emperor's safety into the traditional festivities; see Littlewood (n. 14), xxxii–xxxiv.
21 Cf. Stat. Silv. 4.2.63–4, in which Statius, at the closing of the poem, offers thanks to Domitian for inviting him to take part in the sacra of the emperor's own table, the first to which the poet had been invited (qua mihi felices epulas mensaeque dedisti | sacra tuae ...). C.E. Newlands, Statius’ Silvae and the Poetics of Empire (Cambridge, 2002), 280–1 suggests that in this instance Statius is attempting ‘to negotiate delicately a new relationship with the emperor’—one in which the poet can rely on the emperor's future support and patronage. By emphasizing his admission to Domitian's table, Statius is able to highlight the renewed and (in theory) lasting ties this signals: see Malamud, M.A., ‘A spectacular feast: Silvae 4.2’, Arethusa 40 (2007), 223–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 229. Goddard (n. 19), 74 highlights the political significance of invitations to Imperial banquets, through which the emperor was expected to foster good relations with his subjects. Similar sentiments are voiced at Stat. Silv. 1.6.43–50; cf. Donahue (n. 19), 21–2.
22 The epulum Iouis was traditionally held on the Ides of September or November, in connection with the ludi Romani: Livy 31.4.7; W. Warde Fowler, The Roman Festivals of the Period of the Republic: An Introduction to the Study of the Religion of the Romans (London, 1908), 215–19; Wissowa (n. 3), 112; Latte (n. 14), 377; R.M. Ogilvie, The Romans and their Gods (London, 1969), 96; Dumézil (n. 14), 196; Scullard (n. 14), 186–7, 196; Clavel-Lévêque, M., ‘L'espace de jeux dans le monde romain: hégémonie, symbolique et pratique sociale’, ANRW 2.16.3 (1986), 2405–563Google Scholar, at 2436–7; F. Bernstein, Ludi publici: Untersuchungen zur Entstehung und Entwicklung der öffentlichen Spiele im republikanischen Rom (Stuttgart, 1998), 285–7; J. Scheid, ‘Sacrifices for gods and ancestors’, in J. Rüpke (ed.), A Companion to Roman Religion (Oxford, 2011), 267–8. Roller, M., ‘Horizontal women: posture and sex in the Roman convivium ’, AJPh 124 (2003), 377–422 Google ScholarPubMed, at 378, following Val. Max. 2.1.2, notes that the ceremonial feast was extant in Valerius’ own day, and appeared to have retained its seemingly antiquated procedures from much earlier in the Republican era.
23 Mueller (n. 10), 74. The intervention of the gods within the scene is suggested more directly at Gell. NA 12.8.2–3. On the wider religious implications of the feast, see F. La Rosa, ‘Osservazioni sulla parentela in età arcaica’, in Studi per Giovanni Nicosia, 8 vols. (Catania, 2007), 4.327–33, at 330.
24 Cic. De or. 3.3.10 also refers to the incident, placing it alongside the other murders instigated by Marius, including, appropriately, that of M. Antonius.
25 On nefas see, in particular, P. Cipriano, Fas e nefas (Rome, 1978); J.J. Lennon, Pollution and Religion in Ancient Rome (Cambridge, 2014), 38–9. R. Caillois, Man and the Sacred (trans. M. Barash) (Chicago, 1959), 25–6 highlights the links between divine and social order, both of which may be thrown into disorder by acts deemed to be nefas. The pollution of household gods is also alluded to at Cic. Deiot. 15, Livy 1.48.5, Sen. Contr. 10.3.1. In each case, the pollution results from the violation of social customs or familial obligations. The susceptibility of the (sacred) table to pollution also appears at Juv. Sat. 6.Ox.1–16, in this instance attacking a wife's betrayal of her husband by permitting adulterers and cinaedi into the household.
26 J.R. Patterson, ‘The relationship of the Italian ruling classes with Rome: friendship, family relations and their consequences’, in M. Jehne and R. Pfeilschifter (edd.), Herrschaft ohne Integration? Rom und Italien in republikanischer Zeit (Frankfurt, 2006), 139–53; OCD 4 s.v. ‘friendship, ritualized’. Cf. T.P. Wiseman, New Men in the Roman Senate, 139 b.c. – a.d. 14 (Oxford, 1971), 35.
27 Nybakken, O.E., ‘The moral basis of hospitium privatum ’, CJ 41 (1946), 248–53Google Scholar, at 249–50. Cf. Wagner-Hasel, B., ‘Gastfreundschaft’, DNP 4 (1998), 793–7Google Scholar; Patterson (n. 26); M.P. Fronda, ‘Privata hospitia, beneficia publica? Consul(ar)s, local elite and Roman rule in Italy’, in H. Beck (ed.), Consuls and Res Publica: Holding High Office in the Roman Republic (Cambridge, 2011), 232–56. Nybakken also emphasizes the role of gift-giving within the rules of hospitium, recalling Martial's references to invitations and the exchange of gifts with friends during the Cara cognatio. This raises a potentially more sinister element to Lucan's unnamed soldier, who brings the head of Antonius as a gift to Marius’ table (see n. 5).
28 Sen. De ira, 1.2.2. Cf. Ben. 4.38.1–2.
29 Tac. Ann. 15.52; C. Martindale, ‘The politician Lucan’, in C. Tesoriero (ed.), Lucan (Oxford, 2010), 269–88, at 273–4.
30 Cf. Dio 48.38.2, on Sextus Pompeius’ refusal to murder Octavian and Antony during a meal provided on board his ship, against the advice of his duplicitous freedman Menas. The scene begins to mirror the sterling example of Scipio Africanus and Tiberius Gracchus, when, on the following day, Pompeius safely attended a banquet hosted by Octavian and Antony on the shore, at which he betrothed his daughter to Octavian's nephew Marcellus.
31 Sen. Thy. 978–81.
32 R.J. Tarrant, Seneca's Thyestes: Edited with Introduction and Commentary (Atlanta, 1985), 226–7. Tarrant also notes the setting of the ‘junior’ sacra mensae, situated away from the adults. This recalls Tacitus’ allegation at Ann. 13.16 that Britannicus was dining at the children's table when he was poisoned by Nero.
33 Poe, J.P., ‘An analysis of Seneca's Thyestes ’, TAPhA 100 (1969), 355–76Google Scholar, esp. 362–3; W. Burkert, Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth (trans. P. Bing) (Berkeley, 1983), 103–6; Rose, A.M., ‘Power and powerlessness in Seneca's “Thyestes”’, CJ 82 (1986), 117–28Google Scholar; Meltzer, G., ‘Dark wit and black humour in Seneca's Thyestes ’, TAPhA 118 (1988), 309–30Google Scholar; Mader, G., ‘Thyestes’ belch’ (Sen. Thy. 911–12)’, CQ 53 (2003), 634–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
34 Lucr. 3.70–3; E.J. Kenney (ed.), Lucretius De Rerum Natura Book III (Cambridge, 1971), 85; Hollis, A.S., ‘L. Varius Rufus, De Morte (Frs. 1–4 Morel)’, CQ 27 (1977), 187–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 189; G. Gabor, ‘Lucretius: reason versus the terror of the soul’, in K. Crimmins and H. de Vriese (edd.), The Reason of Terror: Philosophical Responses to Terrorism (Leuven, 2006), 63–4; E. Fantham, ‘Discordia fratrum: aspects of Lucan's conception of civil war’, in B.W. Breed, C. Damon and A. Rossi (edd.), Citizens of Discord: Rome and its Civil Wars (Oxford, 2010), 207–20, at 215–16. McConnell, S., ‘Lucretius and civil strife’, Phoenix 66 (2012), 97–121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 115–16 shows some reservations towards this interpretation, but does acknowledge its persuasiveness. Cf. Cic. Phil. 13.4.8, which contrasts the wealth accumulated by Antony during the civil wars with that of Marcus Lepidus, whose wealth, while considerable, was ‘free from the stain of civil bloodshed’ (casta a cruore ciuili).
35 Monti, C., ‘Lucretius on greed, political ambition and society: de rer. nat. 3.59–86’, Latomus 40 (1981), 48–66 Google Scholar, esp. 61–3; Bannon (n. 16), 145–6.
36 Throughout the Facta et dicta memorabilia, the campaign against the Cimbri is mentioned more often than any other incident in Marius’ career: Carney, T.F, ‘The changing picture of Marius in ancient literature’, PACA 10 (1967), 5–22, at 8Google Scholar.
37 Cf. Plut. Mar. 27.5; Rawson, E., ‘Religion and politics in the late second century b.c. at Rome’, Phoenix 28 (1974), 193–212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 204. Carney (n. 10), 312–13 uses this instance to stress Marius’ willingness to exploit religion for political purposes.
38 Gruen, E., ‘M. Antonius and the trial of the Vestal Virgins’, RhM 111 (1968), 59–63 Google Scholar, at 62 attempts to argue against the view that Antonius was to some extent a supporter of Marius. The argument of Klebs, E., ‘M. Antonius [28]’, RE 1.2 (1894), 2590–4Google Scholar, at 2591, that Antonius had always been a firm supporter of the optimates, and was a victim of Marius and Cinna for no other reason, must be dismissed.
39 Aquillius had been Marius’ colleague during his consulship of 101 b.c., while Norbanus was a staunch supporter of Marius during the civil war against Sulla, suffering proscription as a result (before this, Norbanus had also served as Antonius’ quaestor during the latter's successful period of command in Cilicia). Aquillius: Cic. Flac. 98; Brut. 222; Off. 2.49. Norbanus: Cic. De or. 2.97, 2.198. Cf. OCD 4 s.v. ‘Norbanus’; Broughton, T.R.S., ‘Notes on Roman magistrates. I. The command of M. Antonius in Cilicia. II. Lucullus’ commission and Pompey's Acta ’, TAPhA 77 (1946), 35–43 Google Scholar, at 35–6; Badian, E., ‘Caepio and Norbanus: notes on the decade 100–90 b.c. ’, Historia 6 (1957), 318–46Google Scholar, at 331–2. On the disputed date of Norbanus’ quaestorship, see F.X. Ryan, ‘The quaestorship of Norbanus’, C&M 46 (1995), 145–50.
40 Badian (n. 39), 332; id., ‘The death of Saturninus’, Chiron 14 (1984), 101–47Google Scholar, at 122–5, 138; Carney (n. 10), 294–5. Badian argues that prominent senators such as M. Gratidianus, who also served under Antonius in Cilicia, were Marians partly on the basis of their proximity to the orator during this period. Gratidianus appears to have held strong popularis convictions and was later adopted by Marius’ brother. Like Norbanus, he was a prominent victim of Sulla's own purge. His torture and execution also appear in Val. Max. 9.2.1. Cf. Cic. Off. 3.80–1; Leg. 3.36.
41 Badian (n. 39), 332, 342. Livy, Per. 80 records that the heads of the Caesares were displayed on the Rostra together with Antonius'. Cf. Cic. Tusc. 5.55–6; Scaur. 3.1–2.
42 On the respect due to established religious custom, see Cic. Leg. 2.19.
43 W.M. Bloomer, Valerius Maximus and the Rhetoric of the New Nobility (London, 1992), 49.
