One of Caesar's murderers, who was termed Quaestor and held command of a fleet which engaged that of Dolabella off southern Asia Minor on June 13 (Cic. Fam. 12.13, with the praenomen in the prescript; cf. App. BC 5.2, on his cognomen). The names of his superior in command and his province are not preserved. (Broughton MRR II)
Quaestor 43. Although he is termed quaestor in 43 he was present in the Senate among Caesar's murderers (Vell. 2.89.3). Had Caesar adlected him? Or was he already a proquaestor in 43? (TJC) (Broughton MRR III)
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)
Probably a Proquaestor (see 43, Quaestors). He was left in command of some troops and a fleet in Asia during the Philippi campaign, and after the defeat joined Staius Murcus and Domitius Ahenobarbus (App. BC 5.2). (Broughton MRR II)
Officer (Title Not Preserved)?
35
(DPRR Team)
Expand
After Philippi, served under Sextus Pompeius in Siciliy and then in the east. In 35 in the east, named alongside C. Fannius, Libo, Antistius, Q. Nasidius, Saturninus, and Thermus as a senior and longstanding associate of Sextus (App. BC 5.139), so presumably an officer of his in the interim. (DPRR Team)