Digital Prosopography of the Roman Republic

PLAU2276 A. Plautius (Plotius) (8) Ani.

Status

  • Eques R? Expand

    Nicolet Ref 275. Cic. Planc. 17. son of a Roman knight

Relationships

son of
? A. Plautius (Plotius) (7) (brother of? M. Plautius (29) Silvanus (tr. pl. 89)) (Zmeskal 2009)

Career

  • Tribunus Plebis? c. 70 (Broughton MRR III) Expand
    • Tr. Pl. 70. R. E. Smith (CQ 7, 1957, 82-85) suggests that 70-69 was the date of the passage of the Lex Plautia agraria and that the law was intended to reward Pompey's veterans of the war with Sertorius. This Plautius may be the A. Plautius or Plotius (no. 8) who served as a legatus under Pompey in 67, but see MRR 2.149, and 151, note 17. See also Wiseman, NM 251-252, nos. 322-324; Shackleton Bailey, CLA 1.333. (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)
    • 17 Gelenius substituted the reading # for the Mss reading #, but Groebe is inclined to delete it as merely a repetition of the cognomen of the following name Terentius Varro, and identify the Plotius of Appian and Florus with Plautius or Plotius, who was Aedile along with Plancius in 54 and Praetor in 51 (Klio 10 [1910] 381), and distinguish him from P. Plautius Hypsaeus, who as Pompey's Quaestor in 64 could hardly have been Legatus pro praetore in 67. (Broughton MRR II)
    • Held command in Sicily (App., #; Flor., Plotius). (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 Iudaea (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)
    • See 63, Legates. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Legatus (Lieutenant) 64 Iudaea (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • See 63, Legates. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Legatus (Lieutenant) 63 Iudaea (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • The inscription Bacchius Iudaeus on the coins of his aedileship in 54 probably refers to his service under Pompey in Palestine in this year (Grueber, CRRBM 1.490). (Broughton MRR II)
  • Legatus (Lieutenant) 62 Iudaea (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • See 63, Legates. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Tribunus Plebis 56 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Read to the Senate a letter from the Egyptian King asking to be restored to his kingdom by Pompey with two lictors (Dio 39.16.2). See Lübker no. 3. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Moneyer 55 (RRC) Expand
    • ref. 431 (RRC)
  • Aedilis Curulis? 55 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Cic. Planc. 17 and 53; Grueber, CRRBM 1.490f. See Lübker no. 2. (Broughton MRR II)
    • The date of these aedileships remains in dispute. Against the date in 54 usually accepted (see MRR 2.223), L. R. Taylor, noting the difficulty of explaining their prosecution under the Lex Licinia de sodaliciis in 54 if that was the year of their office, saw that the conditions of election in 55 after an interregnum made it quite possible for these tribunes of the plebs in 56, leaving that office on December 10, to qualify as candidates for the aedileship of 55; and, as Cicero (Planc. 49) shows, Pompey, auctor, not lator, of that law, was in charge of that election (Athenaeum 42, 1964, 12-28; see also J. Linderski, Studi E. Volterra 2.284-302). There is no definite proof that Aemilius Paullus (81) and Nonius (50) were curule aediles at that time (MRR 2.216, and see above, on Nonius Sufenas [52]). Against this dating, Sumner (Phoenix 25, 1971, 249, note 12) presents the following considerations, while admitting that 55 is a possibility: he finds no implication in Planc. 49 that the consul who presided over the comitia superiora also presided over the final election; Pompey could have held the elections for 54, and as there still were elections in prospect in mid-November 55 (Att. 4.13.1), the passage in Planc. 49 may mean that the elections for aediles were delayed into 54; if Plancius had been aedile in 55, why did Cicero in 54 make no reference to his achievement in office? And the legal difficulty of a trial in the year of office is met if the proposal, rejected in 55, of a period of 60 days between election and entrance into office, had been accepted for 54. There is no evidence that there was such a period, and the aedilician coinage of Plautius with its reference to the Megalesian games in April is rather against it, while the date of the trial of Plancius, in August near the time of the Roman games, is still more so. On balance, 55 seems the more probable year. (Broughton MRR III)
  • Aedilis Curulis? 54 (Broughton MRR III) Expand
    • The date of these aedileships remains in dispute. Against the date in 54 usually accepted (see MRR 2.223), L. R. Taylor, noting the difficulty of explaining their prosecution under the Lex Licinia de sodaliciis in 54 if that was the year of their office, saw that the conditions of election in 55 after an interregnum made it quite possible for these tribunes of the plebs in 56, leaving that office on December 10, to qualify as candidates for the aedileship of 55; and, as Cicero (Planc. 49) shows, Pompey, auctor, not lator, of that law, was in charge of that election (Athenaeum 42, 1964, 12-28; see also J. Linderski, Studi E. Volterra 2.284-302). There is no definite proof that Aemilius Paullus (81) and Nonius (50) were curule aediles at that time (MRR 2.216, and see above, on Nonius Sufenas [52]). Against this dating, Sumner (Phoenix 25, 1971, 249, note 12) presents the following considerations, while admitting that 55 is a possibility: he finds no implication in Planc. 49 that the consul who presided over the comitia superiora also presided over the final election; Pompey could have held the elections for 54, and as there still were elections in prospect in mid-November 55 (Att. 4.13.1), the passage in Planc. 49 may mean that the elections for aediles were delayed into 54; if Plancius had been aedile in 55, why did Cicero in 54 make no reference to his achievement in office? And the legal difficulty of a trial in the year of office is met if the proposal, rejected in 55, of a period of 60 days between election and entrance into office, had been accepted for 54. There is no evidence that there was such a period, and the aedilician coinage of Plautius with its reference to the Megalesian games in April is rather against it, while the date of the trial of Plancius, in August near the time of the Roman games, is still more so. On balance, 55 seems the more probable year. (Broughton MRR III)
  • Praetor 51 Rome, urbanus? (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Cic. Att. 5.15.1; cf. Fam. 13.29.4. See Lübker no. 3. (Broughton MRR II)
    • p. 755, footnote 485 (Brennan 2000)
  • Promagistrate? 49 Bithynia, Pontus (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Probably governor of Bithynia and Pontus in 49-48 (Cic. Fam. 13.29.4). (Broughton MRR II)
  • Promagistrate? 48 Bithynia, Pontus (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Possibly governor of Bithynia and Pontus in 49-48 (Cic. Fam. 13.29.4). (Broughton MRR II)

< Back to results