The Claudii Marcelli second line

[Caesar CXXXVII]

*Bad English alert*

 

Hi .

 

There is no problem with the "first", main, line of the Claudii marcelli -

 

1. Marcus Cos. 328 Var.

2. His son or grandson Marcus Cos. 287

3. His grandson (a stepson of Manius Otacilius Cos. 263 and 246) Marcus, 4 or 5 times Consul

4. His son Marcus Cos. 196

5. His brother Marcus (yes, two sons with the same name) Prae. 188

6. No. 4' son Marcus, 3 times Consul

Etc'

 

But what about the Aedilis Plebis of 216, Marcus ? Who was Marcus the Praetor of 185 ? Who was Marcus Cos. 183 ?

 

Any information ? I have found many speculations but no solid conclusions

Edited November 5, 2008 by Caesar CXXXVII

[M. Porcius Cato]

But what about the Aedilis Plebis of 216, Marcus ? Who was Marcus the Praetor of 185 ? Who was Marcus Cos. 183 ?

 

In 216, the two aediles of the plebs were M. Aurelius Cotta and M. Claudius Marcellus (Liv. 23.30.17).

In 185, the praetor named Marcus was M. Claudius Marcellus (Liv. 39.23.2).

In 183, the consul was M. Claudius Marcellus (previously praetor in 188--Liv. 38.42.7, Val. Max. 6.6.3).

[Caesar CXXXVII]

But what about the Aedilis Plebis of 216, Marcus ? Who was Marcus the Praetor of 185 ? Who was Marcus Cos. 183 ?

 

In 216, the two aediles of the plebs were M. Aurelius Cotta and M. Claudius Marcellus (Liv. 23.30.17).

In 185, the praetor named Marcus was M. Claudius Marcellus (Liv. 39.23.2).

In 183, the consul was M. Claudius Marcellus (previously praetor in 188--Liv. 38.42.7, Val. Max. 6.6.3).

 

 

Yes indeed . I meant, who were they with regard to the Claudii Marcelli's main line, cousins ? nephews ? In other words - Where are they in the stemma of the Claudiii Marcelli ?

Edited November 5, 2008 by Caesar CXXXVII

[Nephele]

But what about the Aedilis Plebis of 216, Marcus ? Who was Marcus the Praetor of 185 ? Who was Marcus Cos. 183 ?

 

In 216, the two aediles of the plebs were M. Aurelius Cotta and M. Claudius Marcellus (Liv. 23.30.17).

In 185, the praetor named Marcus was M. Claudius Marcellus (Liv. 39.23.2).

In 183, the consul was M. Claudius Marcellus (previously praetor in 188--Liv. 38.42.7, Val. Max. 6.6.3).

 

 

Yes indeed . I meant, who were they with regard to the Claudii Marcelli's main line, cousins ? nephews ? In other words - Where are they in the stemma of the Claudiii Marcelli ?

 

Wouldn't (as indicated by MPC's information) Marcus the Consul of 183 (and possibly Marcus the Praetor of 185, as well, according to my edited-in note below), be the same person whom you have already identified as "5. His brother Marcus (yes, two sons with the same name) Prae. 188"?

 

Additionally, a note in Broughton's Magistrates states that M

[Caesar CXXXVII]

The problem is that the aedilis plebis of 216 is an enigma . He is not the brother of the 4/5 times Consul .

There is a speculation that he is the father of the Consul of 183 . The Consul of 183 was Praetor in 188 or in 185 (not in both years) . so, we have a Consular Marcus Claudius Marcellus without a solid father or sons or brother . frustration !!!

 

*WNATED - THE STEMMA OF THE CLAUDII MARCELLI*

Edited November 6, 2008 by Caesar CXXXVII

[ASCLEPIADES]

Sorry, too much text to be posted without confusion.

Edited December 1, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Asc',

 

1. The first Marcellus to become a Consul did it in 331 Var. , ie 328 BCE - my mistake

2. there is no way that the sword of Rome was an Aedilis Plebis in 216 and that is because he served ,allready, as Aedilis Curula in c. 226 and was Consul in 222 . Besides, I have not found any scholar who raised this speculation . Alas, he is still, an enigma

3. there is no mention (in the sources or in modern works) about the Praetor of 185 being Preat. II

4. It is logical to assume that Co. 183 was one of the Praetors of 188 and 185, but we still do not know if he was the son of the sword of Rome

5. I have found (somewhere) that the Aedilis Plebis of 216 was from a secomd line and that Cos. 183 (Prae. 188 or 185) was his son .

 

and 6. Prosopography is not all speculations (as you said), there is plenty of solid information . For example, we do not have to speculate about Africanus' father, we know who he was

 

I wonder what Munzer said about the problem in Pauly Wissowa

Edited November 9, 2008 by Caesar CXXXVII

[Nephele]

Prosopography is not all speculations (as you said), there is plenty of solid information .

 

I don't believe that Asclepiades was saying that "prosopography is all speculations," and I rather tend to agree with him that one often may find more speculations than solid conclusions. I was particularly interested in that "mistake" in Smith's that Asc. says he spotted.

 

Anyway, for those interested in seeing an illustration of the stemma from which Asc. was quoting (in Smith's), here you go:

 

Stemma Marcellorum

 

-- Nephele

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Prosopography is not all speculations (as you said), there is plenty of solid information .

 

I don't believe that Asclepiades was saying that "prosopography is all speculations,"

 

-- Nephele

 

 

 

That is exactly what I meant !

 

Now, Smith wrote in the mid 19' century, when Roman scholarship was, relatively, poor .

To add to the confusion, Briscoe said (Aufstieg und Niedergang der r

Edited November 9, 2008 by Caesar CXXXVII

[Nephele]

That is exactly what I meant !

 

Pardon, Caesar!

 

-- Nephele

[ASCLEPIADES]

Too much text to be posted without confussion.

Edited December 1, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[ASCLEPIADES]

there is no mention (in the sources or in modern works) about the Praetor of 185 being Preat. II

Edited December 1, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Salve, Amici

2. there is no way that the sword of Rome was an Aedilis Plebis in 216 and that is because he served ,allready, as Aedilis Curula in c. 226 and was Consul in 222 . Besides, I have not found any scholar who raised this speculation . Alas, he is still, an enigma

3. there is no mention (in the sources or in modern works) about the Praetor of 185 being Preat. II

It's clear that you have access to a lot more information than me; so maybe you will be able to quote any specific Roman legal provision(s) that specifically prevents previous consuls from serving as aedilis plebis and/or praetors from serving twice, irrespectively from the common sequence of the Cursus honorum.

 

While we can not find such provision(s), I don't think we wouldl be able to absolutely discard such possibilities. Otherwise, it would be just speculation.

 

 

Asc',

 

Actually you can find (and Nephele could give us examples from MRR) several politicians whe served as Praetors twise and even 3 times but we have no evidence about the Praetor of 185 doing so (that is our problem) . About the possibillity of an ex A.C. and ex Consul who became A.P. - there is one, but no more than 0.1% , I am sure you will agree . The great Agrippa was A.C. after being Consul but it was in another era and very unusual . Think of it - The great Marcellus, the victor of the Celts in 222, serving as a wheat seller to the poor 6 years later....

 

Again, the possibility is there, but Livy, Plutarchus and all the others did not know about it . Thus ,I am compelled to assume (like others) that the damn A.P. of the year 216 BCE is a mystery (for me), and so is the Cos. 183 (see Briscoe above) .

 

Edit : I must admit, it is like finding a needle in...but fun !

Edited November 9, 2008 by Caesar CXXXVII

[ASCLEPIADES]

Again, the possibility is there.

Edited December 1, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES