AEMI1471 M. Aemilius (70) M'. f. M'. n. Lepidus


  • Patrician

Life Dates

  • 200?, birth (Rüpke 2005)


grandson of
? M'. Aemilius (103) M'. f. (Lepidus)? Numida (son of? M'. Aemilius (D)) (Zmeskal 2009)
son of
? M'. Aemilius (E) Lepidus (son of? M'. Aemilius (103) M'. f. (Lepidus)? Numida) (Zmeskal 2009)
father of
? M. Aemilius (71) Lepidus (cos. 126) (Brennan 2000)
? M. Aemilius (83) M. f. M. n. Lepidus Porcina (cos. 137) (Zmeskal 2009)
? M'. Aemilius (C) Lepidus (son of? M. Aemilius (70) M'. f. M'. n. Lepidus (cos. 158)) (Zmeskal 2009)
grandfather of
M. Aemilius (72) Q. f. M. n. Pal. Lepidus (cos. 78) (Badian 1990)
great grandfather of
? M'. Aemilius (62) M'. f. Lepidus (cos. 66) (Zmeskal 2009)


  • Legatus (Ambassador) 170 Gallia Transalpina (Broughton MRR III) Expand
    • Cos. 158. In MRR 1.421, 170 B.C., Leg., amb. a, cancel the reference to M. Aemilius Lepidus (68). Cos. 187, and substitute the consul of 158, above. Laelius as senior man marks the dignity of the embassy. Willems has shown that the regular pattern for two-man embassies is one senior and one junior (Senat .2.496). On the Decemvirate of the consul of 158 (above), see below, the note on M. Aemilius Lepidus Porcina (83). If we accept Schåne's emendation pro collegio in Frontin. Aq. 1.7, the consul of 158 becomes the most probable identification for the M. Lepidus who spoke on behalf of the college in 143 (Sumner, Orators 47-48). Sumner's suggestion that the successor of M'. Aemilius Lepidus Numida (103) as Decemvir in 211 was another M'. Aemilius Lepidus (see above, on M. Aemilius Lepidus [67], Pr. 218), his son, and father of the consul of 158, brings three generations of Lepidi in order into the Decemvirate, but adduces a Lepidus who existed but has otherwise no known career. (Broughton MRR III)
  • Decemvir Sacris Faciundis? 165 to 144 (Rüpke 2005)
  • Praetor before 160 (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Possibly the Praetor, M. Aemilius M. f., who presided over the Senate when the dispute between Magnesia and Priene was discussed (SIG(3) 679). Contrary to the usual dating in 143 (see 143, Praetors), Holleaux would date this document in the same period as the letter of P. Cornelius Blasio to the Corcyreans (BCH 48 [1924] 386, and 396, note 1; accepted by Magie, Anatolian Stud. Buckler 174, note 1, and Roman Rule in Asia Minor 1.113; 2.964, note 82; cf. SEG 4.508). See 165, Praetors. (Broughton MRR I)
    • The latest possible date under the Lex Villia.{444} (Broughton MRR I)
    • p. 736, footnote 109 (Brennan 2000)
  • Consul 158 (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Fast. Cap., Degrassi 50f., 123, 462f.; Fast. Ant., ib. 160f.; Piso fr. 37 in Plin. NH 34.30; Censorin. DN 17.13 (with M. f. for M'. f.); Chr. 354; Fast. Hyd.; Chr. Pasc.; Cassiod. On Popillius, see Lübker no. 3. On the reopening of the mines in Macedonia, see Cassiod. (Broughton MRR I)
  • Decemvir Sacris Faciundis 143 (Rüpke 2005) Expand
    • Bardt (Priester 30) accepts the emendation collegio in Frontin. Aq. 1.7 (see above, Praetors, and note 1), identifies Lepidus and Lentulus as above, and because of the mention of the Sibylline Oracles lists them as Decemviri. (Broughton MRR I)
    • Cos. 137. See MRR 1.472. As the passage in Frontin. Aq. 1.7 makes no mention of praetors and deals primarily with actions of a M. Lepidus who was a member of the college of Xviri s. f., and as Porcina is attested a member of the college of augurs by or before 125 B.C. (see MRR 1.511, cf. 496), the evidence for Porcina's praetorship in 143 disappears, and the consul of 158, M. Aemilius M'. f. M'. n. Lepidus (70) should be accepted as the Xvir s. f. active in 143 (see above; Sumner, Orators 47-48; cf. MRR 1.473, note 1). Porcina must have been praetor by 140 in any case, and may well be the praetor M. Aemilius M. f. named in Sherk, RDGE no. 7. (Broughton MRR III)