Digital Prosopography of the Roman Republic

MUCI1613 Q. Mucius (21) Q. f. Q. n. Scaevola 'Augur'

Status

Life Dates

  • 170?, birth (Rüpke 2005)
  • 87?, death (Broughton MRR III) Expand

    Scaevola augur was still alive and able to oppose Sulla in the Senate in 88 (Val. Max. 3.8.5), but died not long afterwards, probably early in 87 (Cic. Lael. 1).

Relationships

son of
? Q. Mucius (20) Q. f. P. n. Scaevola (cos. 174) (Badian 1990)
married to
Laelia (25) (daughter of C. Laelius (3) C. f. C. n. Men. Sapiens (cos. 140)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. Att. IV 16.2, Cic. Brut. 101, Cic. Brut. 213, Cic. de orat. I 35, Cic. de orat. I 58, Cic. Lael. 1, Cic. Lael. 26, Cic. Lael. 5, Cic. p. red. in Sen. 38

father of
Mucia (27) (daughter of Q. Mucius (21) Q. f. Q. n. Scaevola 'Augur' (cos. 117)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. de orat. III 68

Mucia (26) (daughter of Q. Mucius (21) Q. f. Q. n. Scaevola 'Augur' (cos. 117)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. De Orat. 3.68

grandfather of
L.? Licinius (76) Crassus Scipio? (son of P. Cornelius (351) P. f. P. n. Scipio Nasica (pr.? 93)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. Brut. 213

Q. Mucius (23) Q. f. Q. n. Scaevola (tr. pl. 54) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. Verr. 1.52, Cic. Brut. 239, Ps.-Ascon. 221St

M'. Acilius (38) M'. f. M'. n. Glabrio (cos. 67) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. Brut. 239, Cic. Verr. I 51

Career

  • Augur? 135 to 130 (Rüpke 2005)
  • Augur 129 to after 88 (Rüpke 2005) Expand
    • Plebeian. Probable member of the college of Augurs just before the death of Tiberius Gracchus in 133. Note that C. Fannius M. f. - n. (7) Cos. 122, Pr. 126 ?, had become an Augur by 129. As Q. Mucius Scaevola was preferred to him (see 129, Augurs), he was probably a recent choice at that time, and may very possibly have been the successor to Tiberius Gracchus. A fragment of this decree, found at Adramyttium (IGRP 4.262), referring to a dispute between the Pergamenes and the publicans, was dated after the legislation of Gaius Gracchus, and preferably about 110 B. C. on the basis of the possible identification of the persons named in the consilium (Cichorius, Untersuch. Lucilius 3f.). But fragments of another copy found at Smyrna (full text in Passerini, Athenaeum 15 [1937] 252-283) mention the month Quinctilis and Consuls whose names end in - {Gr} and - {Gr}, respectively, one of whom, the latter, certainly appears to be in office and in position to take action directly at the time of the decree ({Gr}), and among the questions at issue seems to be {Gr}. This evidence led{497} Passerini to suggest 129 B. C., the consulship of Sempronius and Aquillius, when the latter held command in Asia. If this dating is correct, the decree of Popillius must be placed earlier, and probably in 133, since disputes arising from the settlement of the province could hardly reach the Senate two months or more before instructions for the settlement were given. Magie (op. cit. 2.1055, note 25) rejects the dating in 129 and prefers a date near the end of the second century for the following reasons: Aquillius is the name of the Consul mentioned, but he need not be identified with the Consul of 129 and may be his son, the Consul of 101; the restoration of line 17 ([{Gr}]) is not valid, nor need the Consuls referred to be either those of the current year or the college of any one year; the year 129 is too soon after the revolt of Aristonicus for controversies to arise between the Pergamenes and the publicans; and in the lists of names of Roman senators in the council L. Domitius Cn. f. should be identified with the Consul of 94 and indicates a date late in the century. The younger Aquillius, so far as we know, had nothing to do with Asia before 90 B. C. The words {Gr} and {Gr} in the nominative more probably indicate Consuls currently in office. Lucilius in Book 26, one of the earlier books, refers to publicans in Asia, probably before 123 (203-205 M; and cf. 131, note 1, on Lentulus Lupus). Perperna had captured Aristonicus and broken the strength of the revolt before the arrival of Aquillius, who was therefore free to proceed with the organization of the pacified portions. This is just the moment when disputes, and especially disputes regarding the exact boundaries of territory, would naturally arise. Few of the persons in the list of Roman senators are identifiable without cognomina, but L. Iulius Sex. f. is almost certainly a son of Sextus Iulius Sex. f. L. n. Caesar, Cos. 157, and the father of L. Iulius L. f. Sex. n. Caesar, Cos. 90, and points to an earlier rather than a later date. One reference in the inscription first discussed has preserved the name of C. Popillius C. f. Is it not just as probable that L. Domitius Cn. f. was an uncle of the Consuls of 96 and 94 (Suet. Nero 1 refers to Domitii who had attained the consulship or censorship), and that Cn. Pompeius Cn. f. was an uncle of Cn. Pompeius Sex. f. Cn. n. Strabo, Cos. 89 ? For other discussions, see the references in Magie, loc. cit. (Broughton MRR I)
    • Cos. 117. Augur. Scaevola augur was still alive and able to oppose Sulla in the Senate in 88 (Val. Max. 3.8.5), but died not long afterwards, probably early in 87 (Cic. Lael. 1). In the list in MRR 1.496, and in the Index, 2.593, read ?Augur before 129?ca. 87.? (Broughton MRR III)
  • Praetor 120 Asia (Brennan 2000) Expand
    • The latest possible date for their praetorships under the Lex Villia. Scaevola stopped at Athens and Rhodes (Cic. Fin. 1.8-9- Lucil. 2.91ff. M; De Or. 1.75), and returned from Asia in 119 to defend himself successfully against a charge of extortion (Lucil. 2.55-95 M; cf. Cic.{524} De Or. 1.72; 2.281; 3.171; Or. 149; Brut. 102; Fin. 1.8ff.; Pers. 1.115; Iuven. 1.154). Septimuleius' request for a prefectship in Asia indicates that Scaevola was governor there after Gracchus' death in 121. See Marx on Lucil. ad locc.; Cichorius, Untersuch. Lucil. 88f., 237-251. (Broughton MRR I)
    • p. 742 (Brennan 2000)
  • Consul 117 (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • In Cic. Brut. 306 the incorrect filiation P. f. is emended to Q. f. (Fabricius). L. Aurelius, the Consul of 119, is repeated by Obseq., who omits the name of Scaevola, while Eutropius (4.23.2) has omitted the name of Diadematus, probably through confusion with the triumphator Delmaticus. (Broughton MRR I)
    • CIL 1 .2.584; Fast. Ant., Degrassi 162f. ([- - - -] Metel., Q. [- - - -]); Obseq. 36; Eutrop. 4.23.2; Chr. 354 (Diademmo et Scevola); Fast. Hyd. (Metello Diademeo et Sinerebula); Chr. Pasc. ({Gr}); Cassiod.; and on Metellus, CIL 1(2).2.661; and 6.31603- ILS 5799; Cic. Fin. 5.82; Vell. 1.11.7; Val. Max. 7.1.1; Plin. NH 7.142; Plut. Fort. Rom. 4; and also SIG(3) 681- I. de Délos 4.1.1604b, but cf. 142 B.C. See Degrassi 127, 472f. Metellus was probably the builder of the Via Caecilia (CIL 1(2).2.661; 6.31603- ILS 5799). (Broughton MRR I)

< Back to results