Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:25:00.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Piso Frugi and Crassus Frugi

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Ronald Syme
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Civil wars are not always murderous to the upper order in society. Many of the nobiles managed to weather the storm and prosper thereafter in the years of peace, happily exploiting the new dispensation. Some had ancient pedigree and nothing else to commend them, but the stock of the dynasts Sulla, Pompeius, and Crassus enjoyed high prestige and carried dynastic pretensions: peers and rivals to the Caesars of the Julian and Claudian line. Their alliances and vicissitudes are a large chapter in the annals of the first imperial epoch. Discreet, obscured or held down by Caesar Augustus, the descendants of Pompeius Magnus begin to come up again in the last decade of the reign (after A.D. 4), and enjoy favour with his successor.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 50 , Issue 1-2 , November 1960 , pp. 12 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © Ronald Syme 1960. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 PIR 1, L 130, marrying S 221.

2 Sallust, Cat. 19, cf. ILS 875.

3 IG VII, 208; 305 (Oropus). Groag firmly claims her as the wife of Cn. Piso, consul in 23 B.C. (PIR 2, C 286). The remarks in P-W XXII, 64 are defective in more ways than one. Nor is there any entry in that work for the cynical lady Popillia M. f., author of the aphorism ‘bestiae enim sunt’ (Macrobius 11, 5, 10).

4 As suggested by Münzer, F., Klio XXIV (1931), 333 ffGoogle Scholar.

5 PIR 2, C 286.

6 PIR 2, C 289.

7 Ann. VI, 10, 3: ‘patrem ei censorium fuisse memoravi’ (in reference to a lost item in Book V).

8 ILS 927.

9 BMC, R. Rep. II (1910), 90.

10 Bahrfeldt, H., Num. Z. LI (1918), 105Google Scholar.

11 In the opinion of G. Elmer, cited in PIR 2, C 286.

12 BMC, R. Rep. II (1910), 592Google Scholar.

13 M. Grant, From Imperium to Auctoritas (1946), 31, followed by E. A. Sydenham, The Coinage of the Roman Republic (1952), 213.

14 Asconius 2.

15 cf. Boissevain's edition, II (1898), 443.

16 Thus E. Groag, P-W III, 1396, followed in Rom. Rev. (1939), Index. But observe Groag's remarks in PIR 2, C 289.

17 cf. Historia IV (1955), 57 f., discussing the ‘Calpurnius’ of Pliny, NH XXXIII, 21.

18 cf. the stemma in P-W XIII, 273 f. and in PIR 2, II facing p. 54. Adopted in Rom. Rev. (1939), Table V.

19 In Pisonem fr. 8, cited by Asconius 2: ‘qui colore ipso patriam aspernaris, oratione genus, moribus nomen’. cf. Lichtenfeld, C., ‘De Q. Asconii Pediani Fontibus ac Fide’. Breslauer Phil. Abh. II, 4 (1888), 12Google Scholar: ‘versutus causidicus illi cognomen Frugi esse simulavit’.

20 PIR 1, L 127; P-W XIII, 285.

21 Published by Goodchild, R. G., BSR Papers XVIII (1950), 76Google Scholar, whence AE 1951, 205. Now IRT 319.

22 ILS 954–6. Cichorius wanted to refer ILS 956 to the consul of 14 B.C. in the belief (now confirmed) that he had the cognomen ‘Frugi’ (Römische Studien (1922), 339 f.).

23 AE 1957, 317.

24 For examples, Historia VII (1958), 172 ff.

25 CIL II, 4364: ‘Faustus Crassi Frugi ser.’.

26 After being legate of Claudius ‘in M[auretania]’ (ILS 954), he went with the Emperor to Britain (cf. Suetonius, Divus Claudius 17, 3). A subsequent governorship before his execution (presumably in 46) is not very likely.

27 There is another document, a fragmentary inscription honouring a Marcus Licinius Crassus who was consul and augur, set up by a community of whose name ‘]ascen[’ survives (AE 1948, 90: Rome, Largo Argentina). For the consul of 14 B.C., Degrassi, A., Doxa II (1949), 89Google Scholar; for the consul of 30 B.C., M. W. Hoffman Lewis, The Official Priests of Rome under the Julio-Claudians (1955), 41. The state of the inscription does not permit a decision whether or no the man had the cognomen ‘Frugi’.

28 It is sometimes assumed that he was, e.g. by Constans, L. A., Cicéron, Correspondance I (Budé, 1934), 282.Google Scholar The only reason is the fact that the consul of 61, M. Pupius Piso Frugi, put him first when asking sententiae (Ad Att. I, 13, 2).

29 CIL 12, p. 764, no. 383b. For the date, cf. E. A. Sydenham, o.c. 64.

30 Cicero, Phil. XI, 13. Overlooked in P-W III, added in Supp. III, 230.

31 P-W III, 1395, cf. MRR 1, 538.

32 P-W III, 1395 f. The general assumption is that he had been tribune of the plebs in 89 B.C. In that case, 74 B.C. is an abnormally retarded praetorship for a Piso Frugi. It is preferable to put the two leges Calpurniae (Sisenna, fr. 17; 120) in 90 and suppose their author a praetor, i.e. L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, the father of the consul of 58. cf. arguments in Historia IV (1955), 58.

33 P-W III, 1391.

34 Asconius 14, discussing In Pisonem 62.

35 For the testimonia, Drumann-Groebe, Gesch. Roms II2 (1902), 66 ff.; for his offices and career, Broughton, MRR. Add now the article in P-W XXIII, 1987 ff. (published in 1959).

36 Cicero, De domo 35.

37 IGR IV, 1709. His interest in peacocks (Varro, RR III, 6, 2) is acutely invoked by Münzer, R. Adelsparteien u. Adelsfamilien (1920), 334.

38 Milet III (1914), 393, no. 173 = AE 1914, 211. Like the inscription from Samos, unfortunately absent from record in Broughton, MRR. Nor is it noted in P-W XXIII, 1987 ff.

39 Inscr. It. XIII, I, 170.

40 Brutus 230.

41 Brutus 236.

42 Asconius 14, discussing In Pisonem 62. cf. ‘Sallust’, In Ciceronem 1, 2.

43 Ad. Att. 1, 13, 2.

44 Ad. Att. 1, 16, 8.

45 There is no sign that he went out to any province. Veranius and Fabullus were comites of a Piso (Catullus 28, 1; 47, 3). To deprive them of a journey to Macedonia when L. Piso Caesoninus (cos. 58) was proconsul, attempts have been made to conjure up a governorship of Hispania Citerior by M. Pupius Piso in 57. Thus Lenchantin de Gubernatis in his commentary on Catullus 28 (ed. 2, 1933); Maas, P., CQ XXXVI (1942), 80Google Scholar. Not plausible, cf. Class. et Med. XVII (1956), 132.

46 Josephus, AJ XIV, 231.

47 Broughton, Thus, MRR II, 269Google Scholar; P-W XXIII, 1990 f.

48 Cicero, Phil. III, 25.

49 Phil. II, 62. A reference to the parent is assumed in P-W XXIII, 1990; and Ad. Att. XIII, 19, 4 is adduced, a passage that does not mention any house.

50 Datings vary. The post is put c. 68–66 in BMC, R. Rep. I, 446; c. 66 by E. A. Sydenham, o.c. 136; c. 61 by Alföldi, A., Mus. Helv. VIII (1951), 198 fGoogle Scholar. His praetorship, in 44, even if retarded because of the wars, might encourage a date even later than 61.

51 CIL 12, 745. Not noted in Broughton, MRR, or in P-W XXIII, 1987 ff.

52 Thus the editor in CIL and A. Degrassi, Inscr. Lat. Liberae R. P. (1957), 377. The praetor of 44 is preferable, cf. CP L (1955), 134 (reviewing MRR); Historia VII (1958), 172.

53 Dio LIII, 33, 3.

54 ILS 881, cf. ILS 9424; 9433. For his career, E. Groag in P-W XIII, 270 ff.

55 As demonstrated by H. Schulz, De M. Valerii Messallae aetate (Prog. Stettin, 1886), 6. cf. Harvard Studies LXIV (1959), 40.

56 Though that is assumed in P-W XIII, 270, cf. 285.

57 Ann. IV, 45, deliberately evoking Sallust, Cat. 19, cf. Tacitus (1958), 353; 729.

58 PIR 2, c 292, cf. A 1130 (on the date of L. Arruntius' governorship). Degrassi, however, was dubious (I Fasti consolari (1952), 8). The L. Calpurnius Piso who was praetor aerarii (ILS 5937), that is to say, in the period from 23 B.C. to A.D. 44, cannot be admitted to any arguments about identifications.

59 cf. JRS XLVI (1956), 21; Tacitus (1958), 750.

60 Dio LI, 24, 4, as interpreted and exploited by Dessau, H., Hermes XLI (1906), 142 ff.Google Scholar; E. Groag, P-W XIII, 283 ff.

61 cf. Rom. Rev. (1939), 373; 379.

62 ILS 6095.

63 Dio LI, 10a, 2 f. (under A.D. I); Tacitus, Ann. IV, 44.

64 Dio LIV, 34, 6 (under II B.C.).

65 As suggested in JRS XXIII (1933), 24; Klio XXVII (1934), 127 ff. This view is regarded as ‘probably right’ by Anderson, J. G. C. in CAH x (1934), 877Google Scholar, while Groag says ‘fortasse recte’ (PIR 2, c 289). D. Magie is agnostic (Roman Rule in Asia Minor (1950), 1305).

66 Velleius II, 98, 1 f., cf. Dio LIV, 34, 6 f. (under 11 B.C., perhaps the climax of the operations).

67 C. Cichorius, Römische Studien (1922), 326 ff., arguing from the epigram of Antipater (Anth. Pal. x, 25). Accepted by Groag in PIR 2, c 289, and by others. Against, Atkinson, K. M. T., Historia VII (1958), 323 fGoogle Scholar.

68 As deduced from the dedication at Hieropohs-Castabala in Cilicia Campestris (Jahreshefte XVII (1915), Beiblatt 51), cf. Klio XXVII (1934), 128; Rom. Rev. (1939), 398. This view seems to be regarded with sympathy by Groag in PIR 2, c 289; and Groag is followed by D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (1950), 1305; 1420.

69 PIR 2, c 1339—though Groag's ‘prope sexagenarius’ goes too far.

70 cf. Rom. Rev. (1939), 414.

71 See the stemma in PIR 2 II, facing p. 54.

72 Tacitus, Ann. 22, 1; 32, 2. The ‘capax imperii’ (1, 13, 2) is patently Marcus Lepidus (cos. A.D. 6), cf. the arguments adduced in JRS XLV (1955), 22 ff.

73 CIL XIV, 2535 = ILS 8177: ‘per deos superos/inferosque te rogo ne/ossuaria velis violare./M. Calpurnius M. l. Sulla/Calpurnia M. l. Fausta liberta.’ It is pure coincidence that the slave of Crassus Frugi at Tarraco should be called ‘Faustus’ (CIL II, 4364).

74 For their children and descendants, see under PIR 1, L 130; PIR 2 II, facing p. 54; Rom. Rev. (1939) Table v.

75 Suetonius, Cal. 35, 1; Dio LX, 5, 8.

76 Suetonius, Divus Claudius 27, 2; Dio LX, 21, 5, etc.

77 ILS 954.

78 Suetonius, Divus Claudius 17, 3. For the list of Claudius' comites see CQ XVII (1933), 143.

79 PIR 2, A 1140.

80 Tacitus, Ann. III, 31, 3.

81 Ann. 1, 13, 2.

82 PIR 2, A 1130.

83 cf. JRS XLV (1955), 22 ff.

84 Apocol. 11, 2: ‘Crassum vero tam fatuum ut etiam regnare posset.’

85 Not in the Annales or in Dio, the catastrophe presumably occurred in 46.

86 PIR 2, c 259.

87 Ann. 1, 6, 1, cf. XIII, 1, 1.

88 IG II2, 4162.

89 Thus C. Cichorius, Römische Studien (1922) 337 ff., cf. 327.

90 Indeed, Groa gregards him as preferable (PIR 2, c 299).

91 IG II2 4163 = ILS 8813. The editor suggests that the lettering points to the time of Augustus.

92 PIR 2 C 251.

93 Tacitus, Ann. III, 41, 1.

94 Ann. XV, 48, 2.

95 Hist. IV, 49, 2.

96 Porphyrio (ed. Meyer 344): ‘hunc librum … ad Lucium Pisonem qui postea urbis custos fuit eiusque liberos misit. nam et ipse Piso poeta fuit et studiorum liberalium antistes.’

97 C. Cichorius, Römische Studien (1922), 325 ff.

98 cf., after a sagacious summary, the opinion of Groag (PIR 2, c 289): ‘si Horatium sumimus L. Pisonem pontificem et filios eius adloqui, hi filii videntur aliunde ignoti.’

99 viz., PIR 2, c 287 and 290.

100 It is much to be regretted that the latets comprehensive work on the poet eschews discussion of the Ars Poetica (Eduard Fraenkel, Horace, 1956). A date soon after 20 B.C. is briefly assumed— ‘a few years later, he wrote the letter to the sons of Piso’ (ibid. 365, cf. 383). That is reasonable. However, Dilke, O. A. W. argues strongly for 10, 9 or 8 B.C. (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, Univ. of London 5 (1958), 49 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.). Reviewing the Pisones, he concludes: ‘L. Piso pontifex and his sons, whoever they were’ (ibid. 55).