Digital Prosopography of the Roman Republic

FUND1789 C. Fundanius (cf. 1) C. f.

Relationships

father of
Fundania (8) (daughter of C. Fundanius (cf. 1) C. f. (tr. pl. 68)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Varro r.r. I 2.1, Varro r.r. II praef. 6, Varro r.r. III 1.9

Career

  • Tribunus Plebis 68 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • 8 This list of at least nine, and perhaps all ten, of the Tribunes of this year is secured by combining the three names preserved in the prescript of the Lex Antonia with the names preserved in CIL 12.2.744, where all or part of all ten names appears. They are all names of Tribunes (see commentary in CIL), except perhaps the fragmentary name of a Curator Viarum, which comes last in the list above. Caesar, probably before his aedileship (Plut. Caes. 5.5), and Minucius Thermus, when a candidate for the consulship undertook curatorships, Caesar of the Appian, and Minucius of the Flaminian, way (Cic. Att. 1.1.2). Volcatius therefore, if his name is correctly restored, could possibly be the Consul of 66. Mommsen however has shown that the Tribunes were concerned with public works in the city (Ges. Schr. 3.27 ff., and comm. on CIL 12.2.744), and interprets no. 751 on the builder of the Pens Fabricius to mean that Fabricius as Curator Viarum was at the same time one of the Tribunes (62 B. C.). The date of this college of Tribunes remains not altogether certain. It is of necessity later than the date mentioned in the Lex Antonia (Apr. 1, 72), and cannot be placed in 69 (see 69, Tribunes), or in the years of the tribunates of Plautius (see 70), or of Lollius Palicanus (see 71). Mommsen's suggestion of 72 would be possible if Tribunes at that time had the right to propose legislation, but Mommsen's chief evidence that they had this right, contrary to what both Cicero (Leg. 3.2.2) and Caesar (BC 1.7.3) imply, seems to be this very law (Str. 2.312, note 1, and 3.158). The law therefore is probably subsequent to the restoration of the powers of the tribunate. By elimination 68 appears to be the most probable year. The date in 72 chosen as a point of reference in the law for the regulation of arrangements with Termessus must be based on a situation in Asia or in Termessus itself during the Third Mithridatic War. Note also that a date in 68 probably reveals a stage in the career of Antonius after his expulsion from the Senate in 70. On the Lex Antonia, see Magic, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, 1.295; 2.1176f., note 34. (Broughton MRR II)
    • p. 257-63 (Thommen 1989)

< Back to results