Digital Prosopography of the Roman Republic

HORT1716 L. (or Q.) Hortensius (2)

Relationships

married to
? Sempronia (100) Tuditana (daughter of C. Sempronius (92) C. f. C. n. Tuditanus (cos. 129)) (Zmeskal 2009)
father of
Q. Hortensius (13) L. f. Hortalus (cos. 69) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. Verr. II iii 42

? Hortensia (15) (daughter of? Q.? Hortensius (5) (cos.? 108)) (Zmeskal 2009)

Career

  • Praetor? 111 Sicilia? (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • In Fast. Cap. for 108 space remains on the fragment preserved (Degrassi 54f., 127, 476f.) for the name of a Consul who did not enter office but was condemned ([- - - -da]mn(atus) e(st)), probably for bribery (Mommsen, Str. 1.590,{542} note 6), while the Chronographer of 354 preserves a garbled indication of his name in the word Hotensio. He most probably belonged to the family of the famous orator but no praenomen is preserved to indicate his relationship. Cichorius suggests Quintus, a putative elder brother of Lucius the father of the orator (Untersuch. Lucil. 339f., on Lucil. 1267 M; accepted by Degrassi), and would date the praetorship between 110 and 104. It remains possible that he was Lucius, the date of whose praetorship, for which Cicero commended him (Verr. 2.3.42), remains uncertain. Cicero's reference weighs somewhat against identifying the orator's father with the Consul-elect who met disaster in 108, but if he was so, his province was Sicily, and this in any case is the latest possible year under the Lex Villia for the praetorship of the Consulelect of 108. (Broughton MRR I)
    • p. 745, footnote 228 (Brennan 2000)
  • Consul 108 (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • See 111, Praetors, and note 3, on Hortensius. On the filiation of Sulpicius, see RE nos. 57 and 58, and note SIG(3) 705, I, line 5, for a possible restoration. (Broughton MRR I)
    • Chr. 354 (Hotensio); cf. Fast. Cap., Degrassi 54f. ([- - - -da]mn(atus)est, in e(ius) 1(ocum) f(actus) e(st), 127, 476f.). (Broughton MRR I)
    • Additions and Corrections. The name of Ser. Sulpicius Galba appears alone in the date on a recently published inscription of the Campanian magistri (De Franciscis, Epigraphica 12 [1950] 126-130, pub. Dec. 1951), and probably gives an indication of the period after the condemnation of Hortensius and before the election of Aurelius Scaurus as Consul Suffectus. (Broughton MRR II)

< Back to results