Digital Prosopography of the Roman Republic

LICI1679 L. Licinius (55) L. f. C. n. Crassus

• Print

Status

• Nobilis Expand

  Cic. Rab. Perd. 7.21, Cic. Planc. 13.33-14.33, Cic. Parad. 5.41, Plin. HN 17.1.3, Schol. Bob. Arch. 176 Stangl

Life Dates

• 140, birth (Rüpke 2005)
• 91, death (Broughton MRR II)

Relationships

grandson of

C. Licinius (51) C. f. P. n. Crassus (cos. 168) (Badian 1990)

son of

L. Licinius (54) Crassus (son of? C. Licinius (51) C. f. P. n. Crassus (cos. 168)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. de orat. III 133

married to

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

Cic. Caecin. 69, Cic. de orat. I 242, Cic. de orat. I 24, Cic. de orat. II 22, Cic. de orat. III 10, Cic. de orat. III 133, Cic. de orat. III 171, Cic. de orat. III 68

father of

Licinia (184) (daughter of L. Licinius (55) L. f. C. n. Crassus (cos. 95)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. Att. XII 49.1, Cic. Att. XIV 8.1, Cic. Brut. 213, Cic. de orat. I 66

Licinia (183) (daughter of L. Licinius (55) L. f. C. n. Crassus (cos. 95)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. Brut. 213

adoptive father 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

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

Career

• Moneyer 118 (RRC) Expand
  • ref. 282 (RRC)
• Triumvir Coloniis Deducendis 118 (Broughton MRR I) Expand
  • According to Cicero (Brut. 160) he led out the colony of Narbo (cf. Vell. 1.15.5, and Eutrop. 4.23 for the date; cf. Jerome Chr. ad ann. 121, p. 146 Helm; Cic. Cluent. 140; De Or. 2.223; Quintil. Inst. Or. 6.3.44). (Broughton MRR I)
  • IIvir coloniae deducendae, with Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (21), Cos. 96, for the founding of Narbo (see MRR 1.528). Discussion of the date of the founding and of the related coinage has continued actively. H. B. Mattingly (Hommages A. Grenier 3.1159ff.) holds that Cicero's account of the career of Licinius Crassus implies a date for the founding after 114, a conclusion refuted by B. Levick (CQ 21, 1971, 170-179), and Sumner (Orators 94-97), who both return to 118. For the coinage he suggests ca. 110 (later 114, NC 1969, 95-105), but Crawford places the founding and the coinage both in 118 (RRC 1.298-299, no. 282, with argument in 1.71-73). See Badian, Mel. Piganiol 903-904, and Roman Imperialism(2) 24, 98, note 2, for a date ca. 115; Gruen, RPCC 137, note 4, for one between 113 and 107; and note the effective survey and criticism by Sumner, loc. cit. Quaestor. In MRR 1.546, add that he served in Asia (Cic. De Or. 3.75), and that the date may be 111 or 110 or both (Sumner, Orators 96-97). Consul 95, with Q. Mucius Scaevola (22). In MRR 2.11 the Lex Licinia Mucia was incorrectly described as a law "to send Italians resident in Rome back to their own towns." The phrase describing it in Cic. Corn. fr. 10, de civibus redigendis, is given more fully in Ascon. 67-68C as ut in suae quisque civitatis ius redigeretur. It means that they, i.e., the Italici who were acting as if they were Roman citizens, should each be reduced to the legal status of their own towns. Cf. also, Cic. Off. 3.47, which strongly implies that it was not an act of expulsion. See Badian, Historia 18, 1969, 490; Dial. di Archeol. 4-5, 1970-71, 406-407 (on the unrest aroused by the quaestio which followed); and, against the statement in Schol. Bob. 129St, in JRS 63, 1973, 127-128. His province after his consulship may have been both Gallia Cisalpina and Transalpina (Badian, Studies 92, and 103, note 146). See, however, Ascon. 15C, and below, on Q. Mucius Scaevola. (Broughton MRR III)
• Quaestor? 111 Asia (Broughton MRR I) Expand
  • The latest probable date, as he became Tribune of the Plebs in 107 (Cic. De Or. 1.45; 2.365; 3.75). See Sobeck 20. (Broughton MRR I)
  • IIvir coloniae deducendae, with Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (21), Cos. 96, for the founding of Narbo (see MRR 1.528). Discussion of the date of the founding and of the related coinage has continued actively. H. B. Mattingly (Hommages A. Grenier 3.1159ff.) holds that Cicero's account of the career of Licinius Crassus implies a date for the founding after 114, a conclusion refuted by B. Levick (CQ 21, 1971, 170-179), and Sumner (Orators 94-97), who both return to 118. For the coinage he suggests ca. 110 (later 114, NC 1969, 95-105), but Crawford places the founding and the coinage both in 118 (RRC 1.298-299, no. 282, with argument in 1.71-73). See Badian, Mel. Piganiol 903-904, and Roman Imperialism(2) 24, 98, note 2, for a date ca. 115; Gruen, RPCC 137, note 4, for one between 113 and 107; and note the effective survey and criticism by Sumner, loc. cit. Quaestor. In MRR 1.546, add that he served in Asia (Cic. De Or. 3.75), and that the date may be 111 or 110 or both (Sumner, Orators 96-97). Consul 95, with Q. Mucius Scaevola (22). In MRR 2.11 the Lex Licinia Mucia was incorrectly described as a law "to send Italians resident in Rome back to their own towns." The phrase describing it in Cic. Corn. fr. 10, de civibus redigendis, is given more fully in Ascon. 67-68C as ut in suae quisque civitatis ius redigeretur. It means that they, i.e., the Italici who were acting as if they were Roman citizens, should each be reduced to the legal status of their own towns. Cf. also, Cic. Off. 3.47, which strongly implies that it was not an act of expulsion. See Badian, Historia 18, 1969, 490; Dial. di Archeol. 4-5, 1970-71, 406-407 (on the unrest aroused by the quaestio which followed); and, against the statement in Schol. Bob. 129St, in JRS 63, 1973, 127-128. His province after his consulship may have been both Gallia Cisalpina and Transalpina (Badian, Studies 92, and 103, note 146). See, however, Ascon. 15C, and below, on Q. Mucius Scaevola. (Broughton MRR III)
• Quaestor? 110 Asia (Broughton MRR I) Expand
  • IIvir coloniae deducendae, with Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (21), Cos. 96, for the founding of Narbo (see MRR 1.528). Discussion of the date of the founding and of the related coinage has continued actively. H. B. Mattingly (Hommages A. Grenier 3.1159ff.) holds that Cicero's account of the career of Licinius Crassus implies a date for the founding after 114, a conclusion refuted by B. Levick (CQ 21, 1971, 170-179), and Sumner (Orators 94-97), who both return to 118. For the coinage he suggests ca. 110 (later 114, NC 1969, 95-105), but Crawford places the founding and the coinage both in 118 (RRC 1.298-299, no. 282, with argument in 1.71-73). See Badian, Mel. Piganiol 903-904, and Roman Imperialism(2) 24, 98, note 2, for a date ca. 115; Gruen, RPCC 137, note 4, for one between 113 and 107; and note the effective survey and criticism by Sumner, loc. cit. Quaestor. In MRR 1.546, add that he served in Asia (Cic. De Or. 3.75), and that the date may be 111 or 110 or both (Sumner, Orators 96-97). Consul 95, with Q. Mucius Scaevola (22). In MRR 2.11 the Lex Licinia Mucia was incorrectly described as a law "to send Italians resident in Rome back to their own towns." The phrase describing it in Cic. Corn. fr. 10, de civibus redigendis, is given more fully in Ascon. 67-68C as ut in suae quisque civitatis ius redigeretur. It means that they, i.e., the Italici who were acting as if they were Roman citizens, should each be reduced to the legal status of their own towns. Cf. also, Cic. Off. 3.47, which strongly implies that it was not an act of expulsion. See Badian, Historia 18, 1969, 490; Dial. di Archeol. 4-5, 1970-71, 406-407 (on the unrest aroused by the quaestio which followed); and, against the statement in Schol. Bob. 129St, in JRS 63, 1973, 127-128. His province after his consulship may have been both Gallia Cisalpina and Transalpina (Badian, Studies 92, and 103, note 146). See, however, Ascon. 15C, and below, on Q. Mucius Scaevola. (Broughton MRR III)
• Tribunus Plebis 107 (Broughton MRR I) Expand
  • Held the office one year before Scaevola (Cic. Brut. 160-161; see 106, Tribunes of the Plebs). On his dinner with Granius the praeco, see Marx 1.x1ix, on Lucil. Book 20, and Warmington, p. 186 (in Loeb Classical Library). (Broughton MRR I)
  • p. 257-63 (Thommen 1989)
• Augur? 105 to 92 (Rüpke 2005) Expand
  • Cic. De Or. 1.39, cf. 24. He probably held this priesthood for many years before his death in 91 (cf. Cic. De Or. 3.1-8). (Broughton MRR II)
• Aedilis Curulis before 99 (Broughton MRR I) Expand
  • They put on magnificent games (Cic. Off. 2.57; Verr. 2.4.133; Plin. NH 8.53, with mention of Scaevola as Curule Aedile; 17.6, on Crassus). As they were colleagues in all magistracies except the Tribunate of the Plebs (Cic. Brut. 161), Crassus was probably a Curule Aedile too. The date lies between 105 and 100. (Broughton MRR I)
• Praetor before 97 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • 1 In all magistracies except the tribunate and the censorship Crassus and Scaevola were colleagues (Cic. Brut. 16 1). On the date, see note 2. (Broughton MRR II)
  • p. 743, footnote 185 (Brennan 2000)
• Consul 95 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Cic. Verr. 2.2.122; Brut. 161, 229, 328; De Or. 1.170; 3.10; Fast. Ant., Degrassi 164f., and Fast. Cap., ibid., 55, 129, 478f.; Val. Max. 8.15.6; Obseq. 50; Chr. 354; Fast. Hyd.; Chr. Pasc.; Cassiod.; and on Crassus, Cic. De Or. 1. 112; 3.229; Val. Max. 4.5.4. They carried a law to send Italians resident at Rome back to their own towns, and set up a quaestio to enforce it (Cic. Corn. fr. 10, and Ascon. 67-68C; De Or. 2.257; Sest. 30; Balb. 48 and 54; Off. 3.47; Brut. 63; Sall. Hist. 1.20M; Schol. Bob. 129 Stangl). Crassus defended Q. Caepio from some unknown charge (Cic. Brut. 102), and repressed raiders in Cisalpine Gaul, but his demand for a triumph was vetoed by his colleague (Cic. Inv. 2.111, Consul; Pis. 62, and Ascon. 15 C; Val. Max. 3.7.6, Proconsul; see 94, Promagistrates). Scaevola resigned his province (Ascon. 15C; cf. Balsdon, CR 51 [1937] 8-10). (Broughton MRR II)
  • IIvir coloniae deducendae, with Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (21), Cos. 96, for the founding of Narbo (see MRR 1.528). Discussion of the date of the founding and of the related coinage has continued actively. H. B. Mattingly (Hommages A. Grenier 3.1159ff.) holds that Cicero's account of the career of Licinius Crassus implies a date for the founding after 114, a conclusion refuted by B. Levick (CQ 21, 1971, 170-179), and Sumner (Orators 94-97), who both return to 118. For the coinage he suggests ca. 110 (later 114, NC 1969, 95-105), but Crawford places the founding and the coinage both in 118 (RRC 1.298-299, no. 282, with argument in 1.71-73). See Badian, Mel. Piganiol 903-904, and Roman Imperialism(2) 24, 98, note 2, for a date ca. 115; Gruen, RPCC 137, note 4, for one between 113 and 107; and note the effective survey and criticism by Sumner, loc. cit. Quaestor. In MRR 1.546, add that he served in Asia (Cic. De Or. 3.75), and that the date may be 111 or 110 or both (Sumner, Orators 96-97). Consul 95, with Q. Mucius Scaevola (22). In MRR 2.11 the Lex Licinia Mucia was incorrectly described as a law "to send Italians resident in Rome back to their own towns." The phrase describing it in Cic. Corn. fr. 10, de civibus redigendis, is given more fully in Ascon. 67-68C as ut in suae quisque civitatis ius redigeretur. It means that they, i.e., the Italici who were acting as if they were Roman citizens, should each be reduced to the legal status of their own towns. Cf. also, Cic. Off. 3.47, which strongly implies that it was not an act of expulsion. See Badian, Historia 18, 1969, 490; Dial. di Archeol. 4-5, 1970-71, 406-407 (on the unrest aroused by the quaestio which followed); and, against the statement in Schol. Bob. 129St, in JRS 63, 1973, 127-128. His province after his consulship may have been both Gallia Cisalpina and Transalpina (Badian, Studies 92, and 103, note 146). See, however, Ascon. 15C, and below, on Q. Mucius Scaevola. (Broughton MRR III)
• Proconsul 94 Gallia Cisalpina (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul in Gaul (probably Cisalpine Gaul; Val. Max. 3.7.6, cum ex consulatu provinciam Galliam obtineret ...; see 95, Consuls). (Broughton MRR II)
  • IIvir coloniae deducendae, with Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (21), Cos. 96, for the founding of Narbo (see MRR 1.528). Discussion of the date of the founding and of the related coinage has continued actively. H. B. Mattingly (Hommages A. Grenier 3.1159ff.) holds that Cicero's account of the career of Licinius Crassus implies a date for the founding after 114, a conclusion refuted by B. Levick (CQ 21, 1971, 170-179), and Sumner (Orators 94-97), who both return to 118. For the coinage he suggests ca. 110 (later 114, NC 1969, 95-105), but Crawford places the founding and the coinage both in 118 (RRC 1.298-299, no. 282, with argument in 1.71-73). See Badian, Mel. Piganiol 903-904, and Roman Imperialism(2) 24, 98, note 2, for a date ca. 115; Gruen, RPCC 137, note 4, for one between 113 and 107; and note the effective survey and criticism by Sumner, loc. cit. Quaestor. In MRR 1.546, add that he served in Asia (Cic. De Or. 3.75), and that the date may be 111 or 110 or both (Sumner, Orators 96-97). Consul 95, with Q. Mucius Scaevola (22). In MRR 2.11 the Lex Licinia Mucia was incorrectly described as a law "to send Italians resident in Rome back to their own towns." The phrase describing it in Cic. Corn. fr. 10, de civibus redigendis, is given more fully in Ascon. 67-68C as ut in suae quisque civitatis ius redigeretur. It means that they, i.e., the Italici who were acting as if they were Roman citizens, should each be reduced to the legal status of their own towns. Cf. also, Cic. Off. 3.47, which strongly implies that it was not an act of expulsion. See Badian, Historia 18, 1969, 490; Dial. di Archeol. 4-5, 1970-71, 406-407 (on the unrest aroused by the quaestio which followed); and, against the statement in Schol. Bob. 129St, in JRS 63, 1973, 127-128. His province after his consulship may have been both Gallia Cisalpina and Transalpina (Badian, Studies 92, and 103, note 146). See, however, Ascon. 15C, and below, on Q. Mucius Scaevola. (Broughton MRR III)
• Censor 92 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Fast. Ant., Degrassi 164f., and Fast. Cap., ibid. 54f., 129, 480f.; cf. Grueber, CRRBM 1.184-187; and on Domitius, Val. Max. 6.5.5. The Censors issued an edict against the Latin rhetors (Suet. Rhet. 1.1, in Gell. 15.11.2; and cf. Suet. Rhet. 2.1, from Cic. Ad Titinnium; Cic. De Or. 3.93-95; Quintil. Inst. Or. 2.4.42; Tac. Dial. 35). They quarreled with each other, Domitius attacking his colleague's love of luxury (Cic. De Or. 2.45, 227, 230, 242; Brut. 162, 164-165; Val. Max. 9.1.4; Plin. NH 17.1-6; 36.7 and 114; Suet. Nero 2.2; Plut. Inim. Util. 5; Praec. Rei Pub. Ger. 14.24; Sollert. Anim. 23.7; Aelian. Hist. Anim. 8.4; Macrob. Sat. 3.15.3-5), until they abdicated (Fast. Ant.). M. Aemilius Scaurus remained Princeps Senatus (Ascon. 18 and 22C). (Broughton MRR II)
• Decemvir Agris Dandis Assignandis 91 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • This list, found at Vibo (CIL 10.44, and p. 1003), is interpreted by Cichorius (RS 116-125) to be a list of land commissioners appointed under the law of Livius Drusus. (Broughton MRR II)
  • 10 Cichorius' interpretation of this inscription remains uncertain both as to the meaning of the list and as to the restorations suggested for a number of the names. He is probably mistaken in suggesting C. Iulius L. f. Caesar, who was a commissioner ca. 100 (see 100, Special Commissions). (Broughton MRR II)
• Augur 91 (Rüpke 2005) Expand
  • Cic. De Or. 1.39, cf. 24. He probably held this priesthood for many years before his death in 91 (cf. Cic. De Or. 3.1-8). (Broughton MRR II)

< Back to results