MARC2711 L. Marcius (48) L. f. C. n. Censorinus

Life Dates

  • 89?, birth (Rüpke 2005)


son of
? L. Marcius (47) Censorinus (sen. 82) (Zmeskal 2009)
father of
? C. Marcius (44) Censorinus (son of? L. Marcius (48) L. f. C. n. Censorinus (cos. 39)) (Zmeskal 2009)


  • Praetor 43 Gallia Cisalpina, Italia (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • A supporter of Antony, whom he joined at Mutina (Cic. Phil. 11.11, se verbo praetorem esse urbanum dicebat re certe noluit, and 36; 12.20; 13.2 and 6). Like others who joined Antony he was declared a public enemy by the Senate (Cic. Ad Brut. 1.3a, and 5.1; Liv. Per. 119; App. BC 3.63; Dio 46.39.3). He returned to Rome and in the period of the proscriptions secured Cicero's house on the Palatine (Vell. 2.14.3). (Broughton MRR II)
  • Proconsul 42 Macedonia, Achaea (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • 1 The use of the terms Legate and Proconsul under the Second Triumvirate is of necessity attended by uncertainty and confusion. Commanders, like Ventidius Bassus, who were for the most part ex-Consuls, held command over large and important areas and armies, and apparently acted with considerable initiative, are termed Legati in Latin sources such as the Periochae of Livy and Florus and # in Dio (Liv. Per. 127, 128; Flor. 2.19; Dio 48.41.5; cf. 49.21, and Act. Tr. for 38, on the title and triumph of Ventidius), and yet many of them appear in the lists of triumphs as Proconsuls. In mentioning the triumph of Domitius Calvinus, Dio (48.42.3-4) remarks that those in power granted honors at will # (see also 49.42.3; 54.12.1-2). Mommsen finds the beginning of this contradiction in Caesar's grant of triumphs at the end of 45 to his Legates Fabius Maximus and Q. Pedius (see 45, Promagistrates). Like these, the later commanders were Legates also under the superior imperium of the Triumviri, and their appearance as Proconsuls depended upon a fictive grant of imperium for the day of their triumph (Str. 1.125, 130f.; 2.245, note 1). The term Proconsul cannot refer to their status in command since a Legate never had more than an imperium pro praetore. The term Legatus pro consule does not occur, and indeed cannot occur because it is intrinsically self-contradictory (ibid. 1.130f.). Moreover it was simply this permission to triumph that made it logically possible for some of these Legates to accept acclamation as Imperator (see, on Sosius, Mommsen Str. 1.125). Mommsen's doctrine is difficult to test because in nearly all cases no official inscriptions remain from the period of command, and several of the commands are known only from the record of the triumph (see 34-32, Promagistrates, on Norbanus Flaccus, Statilius Taurus, Marcius Philippus, Olaudius Pulcher, and L. Cornificius). The term Legatus in Livy and Florus is strongly in his favor, since Die might have been affected by the regular system of Legati pro praetore in the Empire. However, as Canter saw (46-55), the situation was more complicated. The illogicality of a subordinate with an imperium pro consule occurs under Antony on the official coinage in Greece of M. lunius Silanus, who terms himself Quaestor pro consule (see 34, Promagistrates; note that in the Empire Pliny could be given the exceptional position of Legatus pro praetore consulari potestate), and raises the question how many commanders senior to Silanus may not also have held an imperium pro consule under the superior imperium of the Triumviri. Moreover, Sosius (Cos. 32) apparently termed himself Imperator on his coinage from 37 B. C. (see 37, Promagistrates), on a rather distant anticipation of the moment of a fictive grant of imperium pro consule for a day in 34; and there were others, like Laronius (see 33, Consules Suffecti), who took the title Imperator and did not triumph at all. The period of the Second Triumvirate was a period of transition in which irregularities and illogicalities could frequently occur in the government of the Roman Empire, before the Augustan regime rebuilt the pattern anew. I have therefore been inclined to keep the question open; and to list among the Promagistrates the holders of important commands under Octavian and Antony who received acclamation as Imperatores or celebrated triumphs. It must be granted that the superior position of the Triumvirs in this period made the difference between the functions of a Promagistrate and of a Legate much less than it had been before. See Ganter 46-55. (Broughton MRR II)
    • Appointed Proconsul in Macedonia and Achaea by Antony immediately after his victory at Philippi (Plut. Ant. 24.1; cf. IG 3.567; and on his title, see Act. Pr. for 39, Degrassi 86f., 568). See PIR 2.337, no. 164; De Laet no. 239. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Proconsul 41 Macedonia, Achaea (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Proconsul in Macedonia (see 42, and 40, Promagistrates; cf. 2-3.4113). (Broughton MRR II)
  • Proconsul 40 Macedonia, Achaea (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Proconsul in Macedonia (see 42 and 41, Promagistrates), until he was succeeded late in 40 by Asinius Pollio. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Consul 39 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • CIL 11.7602; Viereck, p. 41, no. 20; Fast. Mag. Vic., Degrassi 282 and 287; Fast. Biond., ibid. 291f. and see 135, 506f.; Kal. Amit., Sept. 3, CIL 12. 1, p. 244; Dio 48.34. 1; Chr. 354; Fast. Hyd.; Chr. Pasc.; Cassiod; on Marcius, Act. Tr., Degrassi 86f., 568; on Calvisius, CIL 10.6895, 6897, 6899, 6900, 6901-ILS 889; Dio 48, Index. Marcius celebrated a triumph from Macedonia on the first day of his consulship (Act. Tr., Degrassi 86f., 568; and Fast. Barb., ibid. 342f.). On Marcius, see PIR 2.337, no. 164; De Laet no. 239; on Calvisius, PIR² 2.83, no. 352; De Laet no. 87. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Quindecemvir Sacris Faciundis? 39 to after 31 (Rüpke 2005) Expand
    • A probable member of this college of priests about 31 B. C. In a number of instances the exact date when a priest became a member of his college is not known, and the conjecture is based on evidence of seniority such as the date of the consulship or some other office. The list of the Quindecimviri is based on Miss Hoffman's observation that the names listed in connection with the Saecular Games in 17 B. C. are arranged in the order of entrance into the college (see AJPh 73 [19521289-294). The names given below are drawn from Miss Hoffman's dissertation, The Membership of the Four Major Colleges of Priests from 44 B. C. to 37 A. D. (Bryn Mawr, 1951, available in microfilm). The order of names and the seniority of careers indicate that the following men, who belonged to the college of Quindecimviri in 17 B. C., were members in 31 (CIL 6.32323-ILS 5050). See M. Hollmann, AJPh 73 (1952) 289-294. (Broughton MRR II)
    • See PIR 2.337, no. 164; De Laet no. 239. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Triumphator 39 (Rich 2014) Expand
    • Triumph ex Macedonia. MRR II.386, Itgenshorst no. 276, Rich no. 277. (Rich 2014)