Digital Prosopography of the Roman Republic

LICI2085 L. Licinius (123) L. f. L. n. Mae. Murena

Status

Relationships

great grandson of
L. Licinius (120) Murena (pr. before 146) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. Mur. 15

grandson of
L. Licinius (121) Murena (pr. before 100) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. Mur. 15

son of
L. Licinius (122) L. f. Murena (pr. 88 or 87) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. Mur. 11, Cic. Mur. 12, Cic. Mur. 15, Cic. Mur. 32, Cic. Mur. 88

brother of
C. Licinius (119) L. f. L. n. Murena (aed. cur.? 59) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. Mur. 89

father of
A. Terentius (91) Varro Murena (aed. cur.? before 43) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. Mur. 73, Cic. Dom. 134

stepfather of
L. Pinarius (19) Natta (pont. 58-56) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. Mur. 73, Cic. Dom. 134

Career

  • Praefectus Fabrum before 74 (Suolahti 1955) Expand
    • C.73 (Suolahti 1955)
  • Quaestor 74 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • 5 Licinius Murena and Sulpicius Rufus were colleagues in the quaestorship (Cic. Mur. 18), with careers closely parallel to that of Cicero. As they are not named as colleagues of Cicero, and Murena soon afterwards became a Legate under Lucullus (see 73, Legates), I list them as Quaestors in 74. (Broughton MRR II)
    • Cic. Mur. 18. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Legatus (Lieutenant) 73 Asia, Bithynia, Pontus (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Legate under Lucullus in Asia, Bithynia, and Pontus (Cic. Mur. 20 and 89). See 72, Legates. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Legatus (Lieutenant) 72 Pontus (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Lucullus placed him in charge of the siege of Amisus (Plut. LUG. 15.1, and 19.7; Phlegon Trall. fr. 12, in FHG 3.606; cf. Plut. Luc. 19.1-7; App. Mith. 83; Strabo 12.3.14, 547c). See 69, Legates. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Legatus (Lieutenant) 69 Armenia (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Served as Legate in Armenia under Lucullus (Cic. Mur. 20, and 89; Plut. Luc. 25.6; 27.2). (Broughton MRR II)
  • Praetor 65 urbanus, Rome (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Cic. Mur. 35-41 and 53; Plin. NH 33.53. (Broughton MRR II)
    • p. 753, footnote 414 (Brennan 2000)
  • Proconsul 64 Gallia Transalpina (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Proconsul in Transalpine Gaul (Cic. Mur. 42 and 53 and 68-69 and 89, summo cum imperio; Har.Resp. 42). (Broughton MRR II)
    • Praef, fabr. before 74. Delete this entry both in MRR 2.484, and in the Index, 580, since Cicero in Mur. 73 refers to another, unnamed person (RS, CP). Procos. 64, in Transalpine Gaul. See MRR 2.163. Against W. A. Allen, Jr., who uses Sall. Cat. 42.3 as evidence that Murena held the Cisalpine province too (CPh 48, 1953, 176-177) Badian has shown that he held only Transalpina and that in Sallust the word citeriore is a mistake and should be emended to ulteriore (Mel. Piganiol 915-918). See above, on C. Calpurnius Piso (63), Cos. 67. Cos. 62. Badian (in Mnemai Hulley, 97-101) defends the usually obelized or emended text in Cic. Att. 1.16.13, simul cum lege alia, as correct, and explains it as a reference to a law that was carried on December 10, 62, on the same day as Lurco (see MRR 2.179) entered office as a tribune of the plebs, still in the consulship of Licinius Murena and Iunius Silanus. He suggests that this was a consular law, the Lex Iunia et Licinia (cf. Phil. 5.7-8; Leg. 3.11), and thus finds an exact date for its passage. Addendum. The phrase summum imperium in Cic. Mur. 89, taken in MRR 2.163 to indicate that Murena held an imperium pro consule in Gallia Transalpina, is in fact used by Cicero not only to describe such an imperium (cf. Verr. 1.37 [Hortensius], and Rab. Perd. 3 [consules]) but also an imperium pro praetore (cf. Verr. 2.2.14 [Verres] and 2.5.134) and that proposed for the Xviri under the Lex Agraria of Rullus (Leg. Agr. 1.9; 2.34, and 99). The phrase in Mur. 89 therefore is not proof of an imperium pro consule, but does not exclude it. From an unpublished paper by Brad Nilsson, "The Governorship of L. Licinius Murena in 64 and 63 B.C." (Univ. of North Carolina). (Broughton MRR III)
    • Additions and Corrections. M. Cary (CAH 9.499, note 2) suggested, on the basis of the phrase in citiore Gallia in Sall. Cat. 42.3, that the Legate C. Licinius Murena was temporarily governor of both Gallic provinces. In a forthcoming note in Classical Philology (48 [1953]) Walter Allen Jr., points out that L. Licinius Murena was probably a Proconsul in command of both Transalpine and Cisalpine provinces in 64 and 63, like Piso in 67 to 55. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Proconsul 63 Gallia Transalpina (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Proconsul in Transalpine Gaul (see 64, Promagistrates) during the first part of the year, but left his brother in command there as Legate when he returned for the consular elections (Cic. Mur. 89; see Legates). (Broughton MRR II)
    • Praef, fabr. before 74. Delete this entry both in MRR 2.484, and in the Index, 580, since Cicero in Mur. 73 refers to another, unnamed person (RS, CP). Procos. 64, in Transalpine Gaul. See MRR 2.163. Against W. A. Allen, Jr., who uses Sall. Cat. 42.3 as evidence that Murena held the Cisalpine province too (CPh 48, 1953, 176-177) Badian has shown that he held only Transalpina and that in Sallust the word citeriore is a mistake and should be emended to ulteriore (Mel. Piganiol 915-918). See above, on C. Calpurnius Piso (63), Cos. 67. Cos. 62. Badian (in Mnemai Hulley, 97-101) defends the usually obelized or emended text in Cic. Att. 1.16.13, simul cum lege alia, as correct, and explains it as a reference to a law that was carried on December 10, 62, on the same day as Lurco (see MRR 2.179) entered office as a tribune of the plebs, still in the consulship of Licinius Murena and Iunius Silanus. He suggests that this was a consular law, the Lex Iunia et Licinia (cf. Phil. 5.7-8; Leg. 3.11), and thus finds an exact date for its passage. Addendum. The phrase summum imperium in Cic. Mur. 89, taken in MRR 2.163 to indicate that Murena held an imperium pro consule in Gallia Transalpina, is in fact used by Cicero not only to describe such an imperium (cf. Verr. 1.37 [Hortensius], and Rab. Perd. 3 [consules]) but also an imperium pro praetore (cf. Verr. 2.2.14 [Verres] and 2.5.134) and that proposed for the Xviri under the Lex Agraria of Rullus (Leg. Agr. 1.9; 2.34, and 99). The phrase in Mur. 89 therefore is not proof of an imperium pro consule, but does not exclude it. From an unpublished paper by Brad Nilsson, "The Governorship of L. Licinius Murena in 64 and 63 B.C." (Univ. of North Carolina). (Broughton MRR III)
    • Additions and Corrections. M. Cary (CAH 9.499, note 2) suggested, on the basis of the phrase in citiore Gallia in Sall. Cat. 42.3, that the Legate C. Licinius Murena was temporarily governor of both Gallic provinces. In a forthcoming note in Classical Philology (48 [1953]) Walter Allen Jr., points out that L. Licinius Murena was probably a Proconsul in command of both Transalpine and Cisalpine provinces in 64 and 63, like Piso in 67 to 55. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Consul 62 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • CIL 12.2.910, 911, 2663b; Cic. Flacc. 30; Fast. Amit., Degrassi 170f.; Dio 37, Index, and 39.1; Eutrop. 6.16; Chr. 354 (Silano et Murena); Fast. Hyd. (Silana et Murena); Chr. Pasc. (#); Cassiod. See Degrassi 131, 490f. On the election of Silanus, and his part as Consul Designate in the debate in the Senate on the Catilinarian conspirators, see Cic. Cat. 4.7 and 11; Att. 12.21.1; Phil. 2.12; Sall. Cat. 50.4; 51.16; Plut. Cic. 14.6; 19.1; 20.3; 21.3; Cat. Min. 21.2; 22-23; App. BC 2.5-6; cf. Plut. Caes. 8.1; Dio 37.36; Schol. Gron. 287 Stangl. Murena was prosecuted for bribery in his election, and defended successfully by Cicero (Cic. Mur., passim; Flacc. 98; Fin. 4.74; Quintil. Inst. Or. 4.1.75; 6.1.35; 11.1.69; Plin. Epist. 1.20.7; Plut. Cic. 14.6; 35.3; Cat. Min. 21.3-6; Inim. Util. 9). He voted to condemn the conspirators (Cic. Dom. 134; Att. 12.21.1), and as Consul protected Cato during the disturbances at the beginning of the year (Plut. Cat. Min. 28.2-3, cf. 21.6; see Tribunes of the Plebs). The two Consuls carried a law requiring copies of all proposed legislation to be deposited in the treasury (Cic. Att. 2.9.1; 4.16.5; Sest. 135; Vat. 33; Phil. 5.8; Leg. 3.11 and 46; Suet. Iul. 28.3; ,Schol. Bob. 140 Stangl). (Broughton MRR II)
    • Praef, fabr. before 74. Delete this entry both in MRR 2.484, and in the Index, 580, since Cicero in Mur. 73 refers to another, unnamed person (RS, CP). Procos. 64, in Transalpine Gaul. See MRR 2.163. Against W. A. Allen, Jr., who uses Sall. Cat. 42.3 as evidence that Murena held the Cisalpine province too (CPh 48, 1953, 176-177) Badian has shown that he held only Transalpina and that in Sallust the word citeriore is a mistake and should be emended to ulteriore (Mel. Piganiol 915-918). See above, on C. Calpurnius Piso (63), Cos. 67. Cos. 62. Badian (in Mnemai Hulley, 97-101) defends the usually obelized or emended text in Cic. Att. 1.16.13, simul cum lege alia, as correct, and explains it as a reference to a law that was carried on December 10, 62, on the same day as Lurco (see MRR 2.179) entered office as a tribune of the plebs, still in the consulship of Licinius Murena and Iunius Silanus. He suggests that this was a consular law, the Lex Iunia et Licinia (cf. Phil. 5.7-8; Leg. 3.11), and thus finds an exact date for its passage. Addendum. The phrase summum imperium in Cic. Mur. 89, taken in MRR 2.163 to indicate that Murena held an imperium pro consule in Gallia Transalpina, is in fact used by Cicero not only to describe such an imperium (cf. Verr. 1.37 [Hortensius], and Rab. Perd. 3 [consules]) but also an imperium pro praetore (cf. Verr. 2.2.14 [Verres] and 2.5.134) and that proposed for the Xviri under the Lex Agraria of Rullus (Leg. Agr. 1.9; 2.34, and 99). The phrase in Mur. 89 therefore is not proof of an imperium pro consule, but does not exclude it. From an unpublished paper by Brad Nilsson, "The Governorship of L. Licinius Murena in 64 and 63 B.C." (Univ. of North Carolina). (Broughton MRR III)

< Back to results