Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-6grmk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T04:51:26.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DINING AND OBLIGATION IN VALERIUS MAXIMUS: THE CASE OF THE SACRA MENSAE *

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2015

Jack Lennon
Jack Lennon*
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
*
jack.lennon@nottingham.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 65 , Issue 2 , December 2015 , pp. 719 - 731
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2015 

1

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.Footnote 1 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.Footnote 2 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.

Despite appearing so infrequently across the surviving sources, the phrase sacra mensae features five times within Valerius Maximus’ Facta et dicta memorabilia, in each case playing a prominent role in the anecdotes chosen by the author. While this recurrence has been recognized, so far it has drawn no further comment.Footnote 3 However, it is only by considering these cases alongside one another that a clearer appreciation of Valerius’ intended meaning may be reached. The aim of this paper, therefore, will be to consider the significance of sacra mensae across the Facta et dicta memorabilia, which was not only the earliest surviving work to use the phrase, but also one of the few to make use of it repeatedly across a variety of scenarios. This will allow us to gain a more nuanced understanding of what sacra mensae meant to Valerius, as well as the response he may have hoped to elicit each time he used the phrase. The paper will focus initially on the most prominent example to have received scholarly attention in recent years, which appears in the final book of the Facta et dicta memorabilia at 9.2.2 and concerns the murder of the noted Republican orator M. Antonius, as part of the wider political purge instigated by Marius and Cinna. The significance of both this act and sacra mensae within the scene will be enhanced when viewed within the broader context of Valerius’ work, and as such it serves as an ideal case study with which to approach the wider application of the phrase. By considering these examples alongside uses of the phrase by later writers, the paper aims to show that the sacra mensae, and above all their corruption, came increasingly to be recognized as a symbol that was both ideally suited to, and most commonly employed within, the rhetoric of civil conflict, tyranny and betrayal in the writings of the early Principate.

2

Of the many atrocities committed during the civil wars fought between Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla, the murder of the orator and former consul Marcus Antonius in 87 b.c. ranks as one of the most infamous. Having reclaimed the city after Sulla had departed for the east, Marius was said to have walked through the streets with a band of soldiers who were instructed to cut down any man whose greeting Marius did not return. Other notable victims of the purge included the consul Octavius and Merula, the flamen Dialis, who committed suicide in the temple of Jupiter before he could be captured. The circumstances surrounding Antonius’ death were frequently cited by later authors as symptomatic of Marius’ vindictiveness and cruelty; they also demonstrated Antonius’ oratorical prowess, since he held his assassins enthralled for some time before being dispatched by Marius’ henchman Publius Annius.Footnote 4 Above all, it was the decapitation of Antonius and the subsequent abuse of the orator's corpse that drew sharpest criticism from later generations, and it was on this subject that Valerius offered his lurid and damning report as part of his discussion of cruel behaviour (9.2.2):

idem caput M. Antoni abscisum laetis manibus inter epulas per summam animi ac uerborum insolentiam aliquamdiu tenuit, clarissimique et ciuis et oratoris sanguine contaminari mensae sacra passus <est> atque etiam P. Annium, qui id attulerat, in sinum suum recentis caedis uestigiis aspersum recepit.

[Marius] also held Marcus Antonius’ severed head in his joyful hands for some time in the middle of the banquet, in the greatest insolence of mind and words, allowing the sacra mensae to be contaminated by the blood of a most famous citizen and orator, and he even embraced Publius Annius, who had brought it, stained with the traces of the recent murder.

The decapitation of Antonius was also mentioned in the works of Florus and Lucan, both of whom emphasized the placing of Antonius’ head upon Marius’ dining table.Footnote 5 Plutarch developed the dining theme further by describing Marius as being in the middle of eating when he was informed of Antonius’ whereabouts. The general was said to be so overcome with joy at this news that he had to be physically restrained from going to the place himself.Footnote 6 Such images appear as part of a series of widely exploited motifs in Greek and Latin literature, in which tyrannical character or behaviour is linked to a loss of self-control that manifests itself in rapacious desires and appetites that, in their most extreme forms, will culminate in acts of cannibalism.Footnote 7 The possibility of this is certainly raised in Valerius’ scene through the blood and pollution that is brought to the table, through Marius’ handling of the head during the course of the meal, and through his embrace of the bloodstained Annius during the feast. Marius’ pleasure in viewing the head of Antonius is made all the more striking when considered within the wider context of Valerius’ discussion of crudelitas (a term with significant connections to the Republican notion of tyranny),Footnote 8 and especially the chapter that immediately precedes it, which describes Sulla similarly viewing the severed heads of his enemies, only this time making a more direct reference to cannibalism which appears to stop only just short of the act itself (9.2.1):

id quoque inexplebilis feritatis indicium est: abscisa miserorum capita modo non uultum ac spiritum retinentia in conspectum suum afferri uoluit, ut oculis illa, quia ore nefas erat, manderet.

This was another sign of his insatiable ferocity: [Sulla] desired the severed heads of the wretched victims to be brought into his sight, almost retaining expression and breath, so that he could chew them with his eyes since it was impious to do so with his mouth.

This description inevitably affects the reading of Marius’ own scene, and so when Marius views the head of Antonius at the table the reader is invited to conclude that Marius, like Sulla, is feasting with his eyes.Footnote 9 But how much does this reveal about the sacra mensae? Taken on its own, Valerius’ anecdote reveals little about the significance of the phrase. Given the prominence of the eating motif within the scene, greater emphasis appears to be placed on the actual table itself, and the physical pollution caused by the presence of bloodshed and human remains. Previous assessments of the scene have concentrated primarily on the issue of impiety and the role of religious vocabulary, viewing Marius’ actions as incompatible with ritual behaviour.Footnote 10 However, if we take a step back and consider how the phrase is employed by Valerius at other points, additional possibilities begin to take shape and it becomes apparent that Marius’ act of pollution refers to far more than the contamination of the table alone.

This issue fits into the wider debate surrounding the structure and the aims of the Facta et dicta memorabilia—a question that has continued to be disputed. Considering Valerius’ goals Fantham concedes the moralizing tone that runs throughout the work, but argues that ‘[t]he book is not literature and cannot be read continuously: rather, it is a reference work for orators, or more likely declaimers, needing precedents for the subjects of their speeches’.Footnote 11 Such a view has been countered by a number of scholars who view the Facta et dicta as containing a greater degree of coherence that may be apparent at first glance.Footnote 12 At the level of individual chapters, it seems reasonable to assume that certain exempla were intended to affect the reading of others, and Sulla's ‘ocular feasting’ which precedes Marius’ own joyful viewing of Antonius’ head offers a perfect example of this. Further examination of the role and symbolism of sacra mensae across Valerius’ work soon reveals a consistently applied meaning that Valerius appears deliberately to have employed. This in turn contributed to the moralizing agenda that is apparent throughout the work, underlining further the divide between the glory days of the mid-Republic and the collapse of ancestral values during the Republic's final decades.Footnote 13

Valerius’ first use of sacra mensae occurs much earlier in the Facta et dicta memorabilia, during a general discussion of ancient and venerable customs at 2.1. Dining features prominently throughout the exempla, and is portrayed as an act of particular significance in the establishment and maintenance of concord and mores. It is here that sacra mensae play a pivotal role (2.1.8):

conuiuium etiam sollemne maiores instituerunt idque Caristia appellauerunt, cui praeter cognatos et adfines nemo interponebatur, ut si qua inter necessarias personas querella esset orta, apud sacra mensae et inter hilaritatem animorum et fautoribus concordiae adhibitis tolleretur.

Our ancestors also established an annual feast and called it Caristia, in which nobody except those related by blood or marriage would be admitted, so that if any argument had arisen between these relations it might be put aside amid the sacra mensae and the merriment of those present, and with supporters of concordia invited.

The Caristia (also known as the Cara cognatio) occurred within a wider series of private rituals that took place over the month of February, beginning with rites in honour of the ancestral dead, but culminating in a feast which reaffirmed family ties and bonds of affection amongst the living and which appears, more generally, to have been associated with bringing about reconciliation between quarrelling family members.Footnote 14 The festival was colourfully described in Ovid's Fasti, which called upon guilty family members or those who harboured ill-feelings towards their kin to stay away from the celebration, using stock mythological characters like Medea and Tereus, who epitomized familial discord, to emphasize further the importance of harmony and concordia.Footnote 15 A similar case which demonstrates the considerable influence of sacra mensae in this context appears in a courtroom scenario from Quintilian, in which the brother and the doctor of a dead man are both accused of poisoning when the victim collapses during dinner. That the murder took place before the household Lares and amid the sacra mensae is, according to the brother, all the proof he requires of his innocence because such a pollution (foedare) of the conuiuium would be inconceivable: ‘As austere antiquity has related to us, tables calmed feelings of enmity, and men who had fought with arms and armies still reclined at the table in safety.’Footnote 16 Such sentiments also made the sacra mensae an ideal device for Tacitus in his description of the poisoning of Britannicus by his stepbrother Nero. Only the fact that Britannicus’ death released him from Nero's cruelty made his death less premature, ‘although it was amid the sacra mensae, without time even to embrace his sisters, and before the eyes of his enemy’ (quamuis inter sacra mensae, ne tempore quidem ad complexum sororum dato, ante oculos inimici …).Footnote 17 Britannicus’ helplessness is underscored by the fact that he was dining separately at the children's table when he was murdered.Footnote 18 Just like the victims of the purges ordered by Marius and Sulla, further insult is offered to Britannicus by the fact that his death is presented as a form of spectacle, as he dies under Nero's watchful gaze.Footnote 19

Two epigrams from Martial (9.54, 9.55) reveal how the festivities and the reaffirmation of bonds observed during the Cara cognatio had, over time, come to be extended beyond the limits of the family to include a person's friends and dependents.Footnote 20 Martial refers to the sending of formal invitations to friends, which, along with the customary exchange of gifts or foods, acknowledged and strengthened social ties outside the boundaries of the immediate family.Footnote 21 However, the sacra mensae were not used in reference to any one particular festival. Ritual feasts in which the gods were present in the form of statues placed on decorated couches were a feature of numerous religious festivals within the Republican calendar. Nor were these events intended to be celebrated by blood-relatives only, although such rites could lead to familial bonds, as is demonstrated by Valerius’ next use of the phrase (4.2.3):

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.

Another famous example of enmity set aside was the case of Scipio Africanus and Tiberius Gracchus, since, to be sure, they came to the sacra mensae bitter enemies, but left the table joined in friendship and bound by a tie of marriage. For Scipio, not content with being reconciled with Gracchus at the request of the senate, on the Capitol at the banquet of Jupiter, also betrothed his daughter Cornelia to him then and there.

The meal, which takes place during the epulum Iouis, sees not only the successful reconciliation of former enemies but also, in this case, the creation of new bonds between the rival families of Scipio and Gracchus.Footnote 22 The meal suggests the affirmation of Jupiter's power, as well as the possibility of his divine influence, but also the restoration of wider political harmony, in this case at the direct request of the Senate, between Scipio and Tiberius Gracchus: ‘The sacra of the epulum Iovis, granted rhetorical prominence in the context of a political reconciliation that prevented precisely the sort of civil strife that almost ruined Rome, must be viewed as an integral component of this exemplum … In short, Valerius’ increased religiosity provides a basis for more generalized political and universalizing lessons (about social harmony and its foundations) for an audience located in the present.’Footnote 23 Looking back at the turmoil of the last years of the Republic, as Valerius and his readers undoubtedly would have, it was clear that such civil strife had ruined Rome, since it led to the outbreaks of political violence (orchestrated by men like Marius) that had brought the old system down. Marius’ seizure of Rome ushered in the collapse of social harmony on a scale that had not been seen before in Roman society. Indeed, it offered an additional exemplum for Valerius concerning the violation of sacra mensae, this time by an Etruscan, Sextilius, who handed over C. Caesar Strabo to the soldiers of Marius and Cinna. Strabo had once defended Sextilius in court against a most serious charge (grauissimum crimen), and so sought sanctuary from his supposed friend during the crisis. As a result, Valerius was especially scathing in his criticism of Sextilius’ betrayal, stating that during the horror and bloodshed of the proscriptions it would have been cruel to turn over an accuser, let alone one's advocate (5.3.3):

… a sacris perfidae mensae et altaribus nefandorum penatium auulsum truculento uictori iugulandum tradere non exhorruit?

… did [Sextilius] not shudder to tear [Strabo] from the rites of a treacherous table and the altars of impious household gods, surrendering him to a savage victor to be butchered?Footnote 24

Through Sextilius’ disloyalty we see the corruption of the sacra mensae and the inversion of those values for which they stand. In this instance the corruption is extended to include not only the table itself, but also Sextilius’ household altars and gods, which are branded as nefas through the impiety of his betrayal.Footnote 25 The fact that sacra mensae are grouped with other religious symbols demonstrates their wider significance beyond the confines of the table itself. They are connected to the extensive social obligations regarding the treatment of friends, guests and colleagues in Roman society, collectively understood through the rules governing hospitium, which were especially important for solidifying ties between Roman and Italian citizens (like Strabo and Sextilius) at the turn of the first century b.c. Speaking on behalf of citizens in the law courts, as Strabo had, was a prime example of fulfilling such obligations.Footnote 26 While hospitium between two parties could be formally recognized, it depended largely on a form of shared social agreement. When this was respected, guests had to be treated with courtesy and offered assistance. When it was not respected, however, it was a grave offence, ‘since in violating fides, both human and divine laws were broken’.Footnote 27 Seneca placed the violation of the sacra mensae alongside some of the most serious crimes that could be committed, including parricide, political violence in the forum and the murder of a master by his slave.Footnote 28 Each case illustrates the total breakdown of social order, fides and mos maiorum. It was for this very reason, according to Tacitus, that Piso hesitated to murder Nero while the emperor was a guest at his house in Baiae, and again the sacra mensae served as an ideal literary device to illustrate these social concerns. Piso voices his fears about the hatred (inuidia) the assassins would incur if the sacra mensae and the gods of hospitality (di hospitales) were stained (cruentare) with the blood of the emperor.Footnote 29 As with the case of Sextilius, the fallout from such a betrayal is extended beyond the table to include the gods who preside over the protection of guests. Whatever Piso's true motives in delaying, respect for the sacra mensae (and, by extension, the di hospitales) could be presented as a plausible excuse for delay, and to ignore this might cause criticism of Piso's conspiracy. Even if it brought about the death of Nero, for Piso to carry out an assassination in his own home, in violation of the rules of hospitality, was the very form of nefarious action expected of a man (as Nero has already been shown to be) who possessed a tyrannical character.Footnote 30

Seneca also appears to have understood the usefulness of the sacra mensae as a literary device, and used it to great effect in the Thyestes, which combines tyranny, betrayal and cannibalism in a particularly savage drama. Having slaughtered the children of Thyestes and served them to him at a banquet that was supposedly intended to cement the formal reconciliation of the quarrelling brothers, Atreus reassures Thyestes that his children will appear soon, declaring: ‘I will grant you the faces you long for, and give the father his fill of his own. You will be satisfied, never fear. Now, mixed with my own, they are honouring the congenial rites of the young men's table’ (ora quae exoptas dabo | totumque turba iam sua implebo patrem. | satiaberis, ne metue. nunc mixti meis | iucunda mensae sacra iuuenilis colunt).Footnote 31 Tarrant's commentary on the Thyestes suggests that the reference to sacra is intended to recall the ritualistic manner in which Atreus slaughtered the children.Footnote 32 However, when considered alongside earlier examples of the phrase, we may perceive an additional literary dimension. It is possible that Seneca knew his audience would appreciate the wider implications of the sacra mensae and the appropriateness of the phrase in this context, in which it further emphasizes Atreus’ tyranny through his violation of trust, family ties and the rules of hospitality.Footnote 33 The banquet makes a mockery of the brothers’ reconciliation and Atreus’ joking use of the sacra mensae underscores the impiety of a betrayal committed at the dining table, which should have served as both a guarantee of security and the perfect setting for reunion.

The betrayal of friends and family for personal gain was also alluded to by Lucretius in his discussion of men who amassed great fortunes from civil bloodshed (sanguine ciuili), and who, in their corrupted state, ‘rejoice in the tragic death of a brother, and hate and fear the tables (mensas) of their kin’. A contemporary of the proscriptions, Lucretius was presumably influenced by such events and it is possible to see within this passage a clear reference to the troubles of his own day.Footnote 34 Once again, the breakdown of social harmony and convention during the years of civil turmoil coincides with the disregard of the respect commanded by the dining table, even amongst family members.Footnote 35 The contrast with the earlier Republican examples discussed in Valerius Maximus is clear. Whereas Scipio and Gracchus were able to reconcile their differences and their two families, whether out of respect for the Senate, each other or the religious setting of the epulum Iouis, we see that men like Sextilius and Marius failed to live up to their ancestors’ noble example, a failure made all the more distasteful by their betrayal of former friends and allies.

The tragedy of Marius’ career was that his many services to the Republic were tainted by his final months. His earlier military exploits, most notably the victories over Jugurtha and the Cimbri, had made him one of the leading political and military figures of his age, a fact that was recognized throughout Valerius’ work.Footnote 36 It is significant that Marius himself is the only mortal honoured within the Facta et dicta memorabilia as both the object and the recipient of libations set within the context of the rites of the table (8.15.7):

ad rogum enim usque gaudio exsultauit quod cum apud Numantiam sub eo duce equestria stipendia mereret, et forte inter cenam quidam Scipionem interrogasset, si quid illi accidisset, quemnam res publica aeque magnum habitura esset imperatorem, respiciens se supra ipsum cubantem ‘uel hunc’ dixerit. quo augurio perfectissima uirtus maximam orientem uirtutem uideritne certius an efficacius accenderit perpendi uix potest: illa nimirum cena militaris speciosissimas tota in urbe Mario futuras cenas ominata est: postquam enim Cimbros ab eo deletos initio noctis nuntius peruenit, nemo fuit qui non illi tamquam dis immortalibus apud sacra mensae suae libauerit.

For until the day he died Marius used to recall with joy that, while he was serving in the cavalry at Numantia under the command of [Scipio Aemilianus], somebody had asked Scipio at dinner what equally great commander the Republic would have if anything happened to him. Looking at Marius, who was in the place above him, Scipio said, ‘Maybe this man?’ It can hardly be assessed whether in that prediction the most perfect excellence more surely saw the greatest excellence rising, or more effectively kindled it. Without doubt that military meal anticipated future meals most spectacular for Marius across the whole of the city, for after the news came at the beginning of the evening that he had destroyed the Cimbri, there was nobody who did not pour a libation to him as to the immortal gods amid the sacra mensae.Footnote 37

In the sources that have survived we do not see anyone else credited with receiving honours in connection with the sacra mensae. Valerius’ phrasing suggests that in this context the gods were the recipients of some form of offering, and that the addition of libations in honour of Marius built upon existing forms of thanksgiving. Considering how rarely the sacra mensae are mentioned across Latin literature, it is striking that Marius was connected with them twice in quick succession within Valerius’ work, but when this passage is considered alongside the scene at 9.2.2, which follows so soon afterwards, it is apparent that the next meal that Marius enjoys will be far from glorious. The two cases illustrate the two halves of Marius’ career—the successful general, triumphant over Rome's foreign enemies, and the ruthless tyrant who exacted savage revenge on his own people when his achievements were, in his view, forgotten.

Marius’ bitterness towards members of the aristocracy who had initially been supportive of his cause appears to have been a point of importance, and the relationship between Marius and Antonius before the purges of 87 b.c. is contested, but revealing.Footnote 38 Antonius aided Marius’ cause through a series of high-profile court appearances, in which he successfully defended first Manius Aquillius from apparently damning charges of extortion, and later Gaius Norbanus from charges of maiestas. Both had clear ties to Marius.Footnote 39 While such acts do not point automatically to Antonius being a follower of Marius, they do suggest that relations between the two men were amiable during the period from the early to the mid nineties b.c. Valerius Maximus’ report concerning Sextilius demonstrates the ties of obligation that might be expected to arise from the legal defence of a fellow citizen. Badian argues more forcefully in favour of Antonius’ support of Marius, however, suggesting that Antonius had at one point been a cornerstone of Marius’ political influence.Footnote 40 He charts the gradual desertion of prominent supporters from Marius’ cause, proposing 91 b.c. as the point by which Antonius, along with C. Caesar Strabo (the victim of Sextilius’ betrayal), his brother Lucius and their colleague Publius Crassus (consul in 97 b.c.), had abandoned Marius, viewing it as no coincidence that all of these men fell victim to the purge of 87 b.c., as Marius took revenge on those whom he believed to have betrayed him.Footnote 41

CONCLUSION

When we look back to Valerius’ description of the murder of Antonius, the scene appears to be much more than a simple tale of crudelitas, and the phrase sacra mensae is not invoked without good reason. To appreciate its significance within the scene requires an awareness of when and why it has been employed previously. The first and most obvious element in the contamination of the sacra mensae at 9.2.2 is undoubtedly the physical placing of Antonius’ head on the dining table itself, combined with Marius’ joyful handling of the head and the subsequent embrace of Antonius’ killer during his meal. The themes of tyranny, self-discipline and dining all play their part in demonstrating Marius’ lack of control. The reference to sacra gives the pollution of the scene an additional potency, stemming from the religious connotations that come with it, raising the possibility of divine retribution against the perpetrator. But when we consider the previous cases in which Valerius used the phrase, two additional points become apparent. The first is the role of sacra mensae in bringing about, and potentially even forcing, reconciliation between quarrelling parties. In such a context the stress on a shared respect for tradition and mos maiorum (also connected to the notion of sacra) plays a significant role.Footnote 42 In the case of Marius and Antonius, men who were once close, sharing seemingly common goals and allies, the table represented the perfect setting for Marius to forgive his former friend, along with all others who had abandoned his cause. The second theme is an offshoot of the first—the welfare of the state. We see in the exemplary case of Scipio and Tiberius Gracchus how even the bitterest of enemies might come together under the auspices of the sacra mensae, out of respect for the entreaties of the Senate and the solemnity of the occasion, and be reconciled as friends, even going so far as to forge a new family alliance through marriage. The welfare of the state is also apparent in Marius’ earlier connection to the sacra mensae, in which he is portrayed as a saviour of Rome following his defeat of the Cimbri. However, Marius’ subsequent pollution of the sacra mensae brings about the corruption of every one of the virtues that have previously been displayed amid the sacra mensae. Indeed, his actions go further, bringing about the pollution of those same sacra that had celebrated his achievements at the very pinnacle of his career.

It is clear that the sacra mensae were a concept that held deep significance within Roman culture. The sources do not point to the presence of specific actions that had to be performed in connection with the sacra mensae, beyond perhaps basic acts of thanksgiving. Nevertheless, as a symbol they featured alongside other (equally metaphorical) icons of hospitality, in the shape of the household Penates or di hospitales. As a result, we see the need for sacra mensae to be incorporated into the wider discourses of dining, hospitium and the host-guest relationship in Roman life and literature.

For Valerius Maximus, the respect due to the sacra mensae was connected to the venerable practices of an idyllic past. The gradual failure of the Republic was tied to the breakdown of mos maiorum, a breakdown that Valerius’ exempla were able both to highlight and to exploit to great effect. The examples from the mid-Republic discussing sacra mensae show customs and traditions functioning as they were originally intended. Social order, senatorial authority, amicitia and concordia are all emphasized, each time contributing to the success and prosperity of Rome. The table is a setting that assures safety between enemies and demands the reconciliation of friends and family who have quarrelled. In reports concerning the turbulent years of the late Republic, however, we see how Valerius constructs an image of a society in decline, using the lack of respect that is paid to the sanctity of the table as one of a range of motifs designed to enhance this message. Not only is the table no longer a place in which enemies may recline together in safety, but we also see from the case of Sextilius and Strabo that it no longer offers a guarantee of civility between those who should have been friends. It is perhaps unsurprising that such a motif emerges in Valerius’ discussion of acts committed during the proscriptions, which appear synonymous with the collapse of all semblance of social and political order. When examining the atrocities committed under Marius, and subsequently under Sulla, Bloomer took the view that Valerius tried in this case ‘not to suggest the ongoing and culminating collapse of morals; he suppresses the customary praise of the ancient and despair for the present decline’.Footnote 43 This no longer appears credible. By emphasizing the lack of respect shown for the sacra mensae by Sextilius at 8.15.7, and again by Marius at 9.2.2, Valerius is able to make just such a point about social decline. This is done in especially emphatic terms in both cases. Sextilius betrayed the man who had once saved him from grave danger. Marius not only betrayed his former friend, but in doing so physically and symbolically polluted the ancient and venerable sacra mensae, both by the shedding of civil blood and by his indulgence in a personal vendetta against his colleagues.

It is predominantly in this sense that sacra mensae continued to feature and develop in Imperial literature. The writers that came after Valerius typically invoked the sacra mensae only in reference to their corruption or violation, in each instance using them to underscore the sense of broken fides and to stress the gravity of the offences that surround them. This cannot be coincidence. It is more plausible to suppose that ancient writers held a common, shared understanding of the importance of the sacra mensae in Roman culture. As a result they appreciated the value of such a motif for works that wished to stress either the failure of reconciliation or the full extent of betrayal. Taking such a view we reveal a new layer of shared understanding between author and reader in the Roman world.

Footnotes

*

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 OCD 4. Translations provided throughout are my own.

References

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.