Digital Prosopography of the Roman Republic

PUPI1974 M. Pupius (10) M. f. Piso Frugi Calpurnianus

• Print

Status

• Nobilis Expand

  Cic. Planc. 5.12

Life Dates

• 114?, birth (Sumner Orators) Expand

  Sumner R176.

• Before 46, death (DPRR Team) Expand

  Cic. Fin. 4.26.73.

Relationships

grandson of

L. Calpurnius (96) L. f. C. n. Piso Frugi (cos. 133) (Badian 1990)

son of

L. Calpurnius (97) Piso Frugi (pr. 111?) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

adopted son of

M. Pupius (8) (adoptive father of M. Pupius (10) M. f. Piso Frugi Calpurnianus (cos. 61)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. dom. 34ff.

brother of

? L. Calpurnius (98) Piso Frugi (pr. 74) (DPRR Team)

married to

Annia (101) (daughter of? T. Annius (78) T. f. T. n. Rufus (cos. 128)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Vell. 2.41.2

divorced from

Annia (101) (daughter of? T. Annius (78) T. f. T. n. Rufus (cos. 128)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Vell. II 41.2

father of

? M. Pupius (11, 12) M. f. M. n. Piso Frugi (pr. 44) (Zmeskal 2009)

Career

• Quaestor 83 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Assigned to serve under the Consul Scipio, but refused to do so (Cic. Verr. 2.1.37). See D.-G. 2.69, no. 15. (Broughton MRR II)
• Repulsa (Aed.) 75 (Pina Polo 2012) Expand
  • pp. 65-72 (Pina Polo 2012)
• Praetor? 72 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • 1 Pupius Piso is mentioned by Cicero with Curio and Lentulus Clodianus (Cic. Brut. 236). He celebrated a triumph as Proconsul from Spain in 69 (Ascon. 15 C; see Degrassi 565). It is therefore probable that he held the praetorship about 72, and proceeded to Spain the next year as successor to either Metellus or Pompey. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Cos. 61. On the forms of his name, see Shackleton Bailey, Studies 126-127. Praetor in 72 (or 71), Procos. in Spain, 71-69? See MRR 2.117, 124, 129, 133. As there is clear evidence that L. Afranius (6) was active at Termantia and Calagurris (Oros. 5.23.14) and was honored by Valentia, cities in Hisp. Cit. (see above, on Afranius no. 6), it is reasonable to suppose that Piso succeeded Metellus in Hisp. Ult. (MRR 2.123), and continued as proconsul until he returned to celebrate his triumph, still probably in 69 (Cic. Pis. 62; Ascon. 15C), and was thereafter free to become a legatus pro praetore under Pompey in 67 (MRR 2.149). See Ch. F. Konrad, Hispania Antiqua 8, 1978, 67-76. Leg., lieut. 67-62. He was honored as a legatus at Samos (IGRP 4.1709; cf. Münzer, APF 334, no. 1) and at Miletus (Wiegand, Milet. 3.393, no. 173-AEpig. 1914, no. 211). Wiegand would date the Miletus inscription to the latter part of the period when Pompey was organizing the results of his victories. He is not mentioned after his consulship in 61, so the legatus at Delos under Pompey in 49 (Joseph. AJ 14.231; wrongly attributed in MRR 2.269) should be identified with his son, M. (Pupius) Piso (12), praetor in 44. See ILLRP 377, attributed to the father by Degrassi, but to the son by Syme (JRS 50, 1960, 15-16-RP 2.639), and again to the father by Badian (Acta of the 5th Internat. Congress Gr. & Lat. Epig. 209-214; cf. Shackleton Bailey, Studies 126-127). (Broughton MRR III)
  • See 71-9, Promagistrates. See D.-G. 2.69, no. 15. (Broughton MRR II)
  • p. 752, footnote 384 (Brennan 2000)
• Praetor? 71 (Broughton MRR III) Expand
  • Cos. 61. On the forms of his name, see Shackleton Bailey, Studies 126-127. Praetor in 72 (or 71), Procos. in Spain, 71-69? See MRR 2.117, 124, 129, 133. As there is clear evidence that L. Afranius (6) was active at Termantia and Calagurris (Oros. 5.23.14) and was honored by Valentia, cities in Hisp. Cit. (see above, on Afranius no. 6), it is reasonable to suppose that Piso succeeded Metellus in Hisp. Ult. (MRR 2.123), and continued as proconsul until he returned to celebrate his triumph, still probably in 69 (Cic. Pis. 62; Ascon. 15C), and was thereafter free to become a legatus pro praetore under Pompey in 67 (MRR 2.149). See Ch. F. Konrad, Hispania Antiqua 8, 1978, 67-76. Leg., lieut. 67-62. He was honored as a legatus at Samos (IGRP 4.1709; cf. Münzer, APF 334, no. 1) and at Miletus (Wiegand, Milet. 3.393, no. 173-AEpig. 1914, no. 211). Wiegand would date the Miletus inscription to the latter part of the period when Pompey was organizing the results of his victories. He is not mentioned after his consulship in 61, so the legatus at Delos under Pompey in 49 (Joseph. AJ 14.231; wrongly attributed in MRR 2.269) should be identified with his son, M. (Pupius) Piso (12), praetor in 44. See ILLRP 377, attributed to the father by Degrassi, but to the son by Syme (JRS 50, 1960, 15-16-RP 2.639), and again to the father by Badian (Acta of the 5th Internat. Congress Gr. & Lat. Epig. 209-214; cf. Shackleton Bailey, Studies 126-127). (Broughton MRR III)
  • p. 752, footnote 384 (Brennan 2000)
• Proconsul 71 Hispania (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul in Spain (Ascon. 15 C). See 72, Praetors; 69, Promagistrates; D.-G. 2.69, no. 15. (Broughton MRR II)
• Proconsul 70 Hispania (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul in Spain (Ascon. 15 C). See 69, Promagistrates; and D.-G. 4.69, no. 15. (Broughton MRR II)
• Triumphator 69 (Rich 2014) Expand
  • Triumph ex Hispania Ulteriore. MRR II.133, III.177, Itgenshorst no. 255, Rich no. 255. (Rich 2014)
• Proconsul c. 69 Hispania (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Proconsul in Spain, whence he returned to celebrate a triumph (Cic. Pis. 62; Ascon. 15 C; see Degrassi 565). See D.-G. 4.69, no. 15. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Cos. 61. On the forms of his name, see Shackleton Bailey, Studies 126-127. Praetor in 72 (or 71), Procos. in Spain, 71-69? See MRR 2.117, 124, 129, 133. As there is clear evidence that L. Afranius (6) was active at Termantia and Calagurris (Oros. 5.23.14) and was honored by Valentia, cities in Hisp. Cit. (see above, on Afranius no. 6), it is reasonable to suppose that Piso succeeded Metellus in Hisp. Ult. (MRR 2.123), and continued as proconsul until he returned to celebrate his triumph, still probably in 69 (Cic. Pis. 62; Ascon. 15C), and was thereafter free to become a legatus pro praetore under Pompey in 67 (MRR 2.149). See Ch. F. Konrad, Hispania Antiqua 8, 1978, 67-76. Leg., lieut. 67-62. He was honored as a legatus at Samos (IGRP 4.1709; cf. Münzer, APF 334, no. 1) and at Miletus (Wiegand, Milet. 3.393, no. 173-AEpig. 1914, no. 211). Wiegand would date the Miletus inscription to the latter part of the period when Pompey was organizing the results of his victories. He is not mentioned after his consulship in 61, so the legatus at Delos under Pompey in 49 (Joseph. AJ 14.231; wrongly attributed in MRR 2.269) should be identified with his son, M. (Pupius) Piso (12), praetor in 44. See ILLRP 377, attributed to the father by Degrassi, but to the son by Syme (JRS 50, 1960, 15-16-RP 2.639), and again to the father by Badian (Acta of the 5th Internat. Congress Gr. & Lat. Epig. 209-214; cf. Shackleton Bailey, Studies 126-127). (Broughton MRR III)
• Legatus Pro Praetore 67 Mediterranean (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Under Cn. Pompeius Magnus against the pirates: (Broughton MRR II)
  • 15 Under the Gabinian law Pompey was entitled to appoint Legates with praetorian imperium (App. Mith. 94; cf. SIG³ 750; Plut. Pomp. 26) to the number, according to Plutarch, of 15 (Pomp. 25; cf. Dio 36.37), according to Appian (Mith. 94), of 24; of that number we have the names of the 15 listed above, 13 of whom held command each in one of the 13 special areas designated by Pompey (see Zonar. 10.3). Their appointment may well have been extended in a number of cases with the extension of the term of Pompey's command under the Manilian law. At any rate Gellius was still in command of a fleet in 63 (Cic. P. Red. ad Quir. 17). See Mommsen, Str. 2.656, note 2; Th. Reinach, RPh 14 (1890) 150. On his Legates and plan of campaign, see P. Groebe, Klio 10 (1910) 374-389; H. A. Ormerod, Liverpool Annals of Art and Archaeology 10 (1923) 46-51. (Broughton MRR II)
  • 18 Mommsen (RMW 655) and Groebe (op. cit., note 17) accept Borghese's emendation of #, a praenomen not found among the senatorial Pisos of the Republic, to #. See Appian, Mith. 95, ed. Viereck and Roos, 1939. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Had charge of the Propontus and the Bosporus (App.; Flor., Cato, but cf. Plut. Cat. Alin. 14.3). See D.-G. 4.70, no. 15. (Broughton MRR II)
• Legatus Pro Praetore 66 Mediterranean (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Pompey's Legates in the war with the pirates (see 67, Legates) probably remained in their positions. L. Octavius may have substituted for the deceased L. Cornelius Sisenna. (Broughton MRR II)
  • That these Legates continued in command for at least three years, and probably more, is indicated by the term of command of Gellius over his fleet (Cic. P. Red. ad Quir. 17, referring almost certainly to 63). (Broughton MRR II)
• Legatus Pro Praetore 65 Mediterranean (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Other Legates appointed under the Gabinian and Manilian laws probably continued to serve under Pompey (see 67, and 66, Legates). (Broughton MRR II)
• Legatus (Lieutenant) 63 Iudaea (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Served as a Legate under Pompey at the siege of Jerusalem (Joseph. AJ 14.59; BJ 1. 144; Hegesipp. 1. 16). See D.–G. 2.69, no. 15. (Broughton MRR II)
• Legatus (Lieutenant) 62 Iudaea (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • Legatus under Pompey (see 63, Legates), who asked for a postponement of the consular elections for 61 in order that his Legate might be a candidate (Dio 37.44.3, granted; Plut. Pomp. 44. 1, refused). See D.-G. 2.69, no. 15. (Broughton MRR II)
• Consul 61 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
  • CIL 12.2.912, 913; Cic. Att. 1.12.4, and 13.6; Caes. BG 1.2.1, and 35.4; Fast. Amit., Degrassi 170f. (M. Pupius Piso Frugi, M. Vale [-]); Plin. NH 7.98; 8.131; 37.13, and Solin. 26.10 M; Dio 37, Index, and 46.1; Chr. 354 (Calpurniano et Messala); Fast. Hyd. (Pisone Frugi et Messala Nigro); Chr. Pasc. (#); Cassiod.; on Pupius, Cic. Att. 1.18.3; and on Valerius, CIL 12 .2.914; Elogium, CIL 12. 1, p. 20 1-Inscr. Ital. 13.3.77-ILS 46; Val. Max. 9. 14.5; Plin. NH 8. 131; Solin. 26.10, p. 115 M. See Degrassi 131, 490f. Pupius Piso unwillingly proposed the bill to constitute a special court to try Clodius for his sacrilege toward the Bona Dea (Cic. Att. 1. 13.3, and 14.5-6, and 16.1 and 8 and 12), and was probably the author of a law regulating the meetings of the Senate in relation to comitial days (Cic. Fam. 1.4.2; cf. Att. 1.14.5; QF 2.2.3; Sest. 74; Caes. BC 1.5.4). Valerius, a good conservative, attacked Clodius, and opposed Pupius (Cic. Att. 1.13.3, and 14.2-6). On Pupius Piso, see D.-G. 2.69, no. 15; and on Messalla, Münzer, Gent. Val. 52f., no. 59. (Broughton MRR II)

< Back to results