LIVI1756 M. Livius (18) M. f. C. n. Drusus

Status

  • Nobilis Expand

    Cic. Planc. 13.33-14.33, Cic. Rab. Perd. 7.21, Cic. Rab. Post. 7.16, Cic. Mil. 7.16, Vell. 2.13.1, Juv. Sat. 8.1-32, Schol. Bob. Arch. 177 Stangl

Life Dates

  • Before 119?, birth (Rüpke 2005)
  • 91, death - violent (Broughton MRR II) Expand

    Murdered.

Relationships

son of
Cornelia (409) (married to M. Livius (17) C. f. M. n. Drusus (cos. 112)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Sen. dial. VI cons. ad Marc. 16.3

M. Livius (17) C. f. M. n. Drusus (cos. 112) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. Orat. 213, Diod. XXXVII 10.1

brother of
? Mam. Aemilius (80) Mam. f. Lepidus Livianus (cos. 77) (DPRR Team)
Livia (35) (daughter of M. Livius (17) C. f. M. n. Drusus (cos. 112)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Plut. Cato min. 1.1

married to
Servilia (99) (daughter of Q. Servilius (49) Cn. f. Cn. n. Caepio (cos. 106)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Plin. n.h. XXXIII 20, Strab. III 4.10 (161 C)

adoptive father of
M. Livius (19) Drusus (Claudianus) (pr.? 50) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Suet. Tib. 3.1

-. Claudius (290) Pulcher (son of? C. Claudius (302) Ap. f. C. n. Pulcher (cos. 92)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Suet. Tib. 3.1

Career

  • Tribunus Militum c. 105 (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • The date of the Military Tribunate of Livius remains uncertain. It apparently preceded his office as Xvir stlit. iud. and his election as Quaestor (Auct. Vir. Ill. 66). (Broughton MRR I)
    • Elogium, CIL 1(2).1, p. 199- Inscr. Ital. 13.3.74. (Broughton MRR I)
    • See Mommsen, Ges. Schr. 7.517f., and the discussion in RE 1 A. 1273. (Broughton MRR I)
  • Quaestor? before 101 Asia (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Both the aedileship and the quaestorship of Livius are attested by Auct. Vir. Ill., although they are omitted from the Elogium (CIL 1(2).1, p. 199- Inscr. Ital. 13.3.74). The date is uncertain but should precede or coincide with the censorship of 102, since Cicero includes him in the list of senators who fought Saturninus (Rab. Perd. 21). (Broughton MRR I)
    • Served in Asia (Auct. Vir. Ill. 66.3). (Broughton MRR I)
    • Tr. pl. 91. The evidence for details of his career consists of two not wholly reliable sources: the statements in the brief life, Auct. Vir. Ill. 66, which include the title quaestor in Asia and the phrase aedilis munus magnificentissimum dedit, along with examples of his pride or violence and details about his decline in popularity and death, are part of a late compilation; and the text of an Elogium (ILS 49-Inscr. Ital. 13.3, no. 74), which mentions neither the quaestorship nor the aedileship, depends on copies of along-lost inscription, probably going back to Cyriacus of Ancona, and may be neither complete nor in consecutive order. It is difficult to agree with Sumner (Orators 110-111) that it details all his offices. It is, however, true that in MRR 1.570, note 4, Cicero (Rab. Perd. 21) is incorrectly cited to show that Livius was then a senator and therefore had been a quaestor by or before the censorship of 102-101: he may have been merely one of the iuventus who rallied against Saturninus in 100. For a quaestorship in the East there is at least subsidiary evidence in mention in Pliny of a visit and medication at Anticyra (NH 25.52). For the aedileship which, if true, must come after the quaestorship, there is notice and name of a possible colleague (MRR 2.12, 14, note 1, cf. 473), but Livius still, as Sumner points out, appears to be too young, unless perhaps before Sulla the rules governing the plebeian aedileship were still flexible like those for the tribunate. (Broughton MRR III)
  • Decemvir Stlitibus Iudicandis before 100 (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Elogium, CIL 1(2).1, p. 199- Inscr. Ital. 13.3.74. See 105, note 7, and 102, Quaestors. The date of his office remains uncertain. (Broughton MRR I)
    • Elogium, Inscr. Ital. 13.3.74, probably before 100. (Broughton MRR II Appendix 2)
  • Pontifex? 100 to 92 (Rüpke 2005)
  • Aedilis? before 93 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • 1 The date, though uncertain, must precede 91 B. C. Drusus' station and magnificence suggests the curule aedileship, but the obscurity of Reminius the plebeian one. Seidel (FA 79) doubts that he held the office at all since it is not mentioned in his Elogium (Inscr. Ital. 13.3.74 -CIL 12. 1, p. 199) and Would have preceded his tribunate, and suggests that the passage in Auct. Vir. Ill. refers to his father. But his quaestorship also is not mentioned, although he could hardly have omitted that (Mommsen, Str. 1.542, note 3, and 544, note 2). (Broughton MRR II)
    • Tr. pl. 91. The evidence for details of his career consists of two not wholly reliable sources: the statements in the brief life, Auct. Vir. Ill. 66, which include the title quaestor in Asia and the phrase aedilis munus magnificentissimum dedit, along with examples of his pride or violence and details about his decline in popularity and death, are part of a late compilation; and the text of an Elogium (ILS 49-Inscr. Ital. 13.3, no. 74), which mentions neither the quaestorship nor the aedileship, depends on copies of along-lost inscription, probably going back to Cyriacus of Ancona, and may be neither complete nor in consecutive order. It is difficult to agree with Sumner (Orators 110-111) that it details all his offices. It is, however, true that in MRR 1.570, note 4, Cicero (Rab. Perd. 21) is incorrectly cited to show that Livius was then a senator and therefore had been a quaestor by or before the censorship of 102-101: he may have been merely one of the iuventus who rallied against Saturninus in 100. For a quaestorship in the East there is at least subsidiary evidence in mention in Pliny of a visit and medication at Anticyra (NH 25.52). For the aedileship which, if true, must come after the quaestorship, there is notice and name of a possible colleague (MRR 2.12, 14, note 1, cf. 473), but Livius still, as Sumner points out, appears to be too young, unless perhaps before Sulla the rules governing the plebeian aedileship were still flexible like those for the tribunate. (Broughton MRR III)
    • Auct. Vir. Ill. 66.1-2. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Quinquevir Agris Dandis Assignandis 91 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Elogium, Inser. Ital. 13.3.74-CIL 12.1, p. 199: eodem anno V vir a. d. a. lege Saufeia. See above, Tribunes of the Plebs. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Tribunus Plebis 91 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Elected Tribune of the Plebs for 91 (Elogium, Inscr. Ital. 13.3.74CIL 12.1, p. 199; Ascon. 68-69C; Oros. 5.18.1; see note 7), and considered, like his advisers Aemilius Scaurus and Licinius Crassus, to be a conservative and a champion of the Senate (Cic. De Or. 1.24-25, ef. 97; Mil. 16; Dom. 50; Sall. Ad Caes. 2.6.4; Liv. Per. 70; Ascon. 21 C; Tac. Ann. 3.27; Dio 28, fr. 96.1-3; Schol. Bob. 117f., and 177 Stangl), Drusus embarked upon a program of reform, in which he hoped to combine the interests and win the support of several classes: 1. the plebs by land and grain laws, with himself as one the commissioners for the assigning of land (Elogium, as above; Liv. Per. 71 ; Vell. 2.13.2; Flor. 2.5.6; App. BC 1.35-36; Auct. Vir. Ill. 66.4 and 10; Ampel. 19.6; cf. Cichorius, RS 116-125); 2. the senatorial and the equestrian orders, by enrolling 300 knights in the Senate and selecting the juries from the enlarged body, thus having them consist equally of senators and of former knights (Liv. Per. 70, and 71; Flor. 2.5.4; App. BC 1.35; Auct. Vir. Ill. 66.4 and 10). He added a clause making the knights liable to prosecution for bribery (Cic. Cluent. 153; Rab. Post. 16; cf. Off. 2.75; Diod. 37.10.3; App. BC 1.35). He also carried a currency law providing for the addition of one-eighth of bronze to the silver coinage (Plin. NH 33.46). At least the first two measures were carried against the auspices and existing laws, and were later annulled as illegal (Cic. Dom. 41; Leg. 2.14 and 31; Diod. 37.10.3; Val. Max. 9.5.2; Vell. 2.13.2; Ascon. 69C; see above, Consuls). With this program he had hoped to gain support for proposals to extend the Roman citizenship to the Italian allies, but failed, in spite of promises he had made to them (Liv. Per. 71; Vell. 2.14.1; Val. Max. 3.1.2; Plin. NH 25.52; 33.20; Flor. 2.5.6-7, and 6.3-4; App. BC 1.35; Auct. Vir. Ill. 66.11; Oros. 5.18.1; Ampel. 19.6; 26.4; Schol. Bob. 117f. Stangl; cf. Diod. 37.11, the oath of the Italians to Drusus; Val. Max. 3.1.2; Plut. Cat. Min. 2.1-4). He himself revealed to the Consuls a plot of the Allies to murder them at the Latin festival and was accused of complicity (Liv. Per. 71; Flor. 2.6.8-9; Dio 28, fr. 96.4; Auct. Vir. Ill. 66.12), and was soon afterwards murdered by some unknown agent (Semp. Asell. fr. 11 Peter, in Gell. 13.22.8; Auct. Ad Herenn. 4.31; Cic. Mil. 16; ND 3.80-81; Sall. Ad Caes. 2.6.4; Elogium, as above; Liv. Per. 71; Vell. 2.14.1-2; Senec. Ad Marc. 16.4; Brev. Vit. 6.1-2; Plin. NH 28.148; Suet. Tib. 3.2; Flor. 2.6.4; App. BC 1.36; Dio 38.27.3; Auct. Vir. Ill. 66.12-13; Oros. 5.18.7; Schol. Bob. 118 and 177 Stangl; Augustin. CD 3.26). (Broughton MRR II)
    • 9 General references to the tribunate of Livius Drusus occur also in Sisenna fr. 44 Peter; Cic. Planc. 33; De Or. 1.97; 3.2-5; Vat. 23; Senee. Benel. 6.34.2; Plin. NH 25.52; 28.148; 33.141; Gell. 17.15.6; Dio 28, fr. 96 (on his quarrel with Caepio). On the portents that appeared in his tribunate, see Cic. Div. 1.99, quoting Sisenna; 2.54; Plin. INH 8.221; Obseq. 54; Oros. 5.18.3-6. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Decemvir Agris Dandis Assignandis 91 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Elogium, Inscr. Ital. 13.3.74-CIL 12.1, p. 199. See above, Tribunes of the Plebs. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Pontifex 91 (Rüpke 2005) Expand
    • Elogium, Inscr. Ital. 13.3.74-CIL 12.1, p. 199; Cic. Dom. 120. Succeeded by Mam. Aemilius Lepidus. (Broughton MRR II)
    • 11 The praenomen M. appears in the text of Macrobius, but Mam. can easily be restored as in Obseq. 58 and in Cic. Cluent. 99. The place early in Macrobius' list excludes the Triumvir M. Aemilius Lepidus. Mamereus' position as Pontifex probably added weight to his appeal to Sulla to spare Caesar (Suet. Iul. 1.2). If he did not immediately succeed his brother Livius Drusus he probably soon succeeded to the place of some patrician. See L. R. Taylor, AJPh 63 (1942) 391-393, 401f., 411. (Broughton MRR II)