PLAN2312 Cn. Plancius (4) Ter.

Status

  • Novus Expand

    Cic. Planc. 67

  • Eques R Expand

    Nicolet Ref 273a. Cic. Planc. 17. equitis Romani filius, tr. pl. 56

Life Dates

  • 46?, exiled (Kelly 2006) Expand

    Kelly no. 56.

  • 45, restored (Kelly 2006) Expand

    Restored? Kelly no. 56.

Relationships

son of
Cn. Plancius (3) Ter. (eq. R. C2/C1) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. Planc. 17, Cic. Planc. 25, Cic. Planc. 29, Cic. Planc. 32, Cic. Planc. 72

married to
Manlia (BP) (married to Cn. Plancius (4) Ter. (aed. cur.? 55)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. Planc. 27

related to
T. Manlius (A) Torquatus (related to Cn. Plancius (4) Ter. (aed. cur.? 55)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. Planc. 27

Career

  • Tribunus Militum 62 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Served in Macedonia, probably under C. Antonius (Cic. Planc. 27). (Broughton MRR II)
  • Quaestor 58 Macedonia (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Served in Macedonia under L. Appuleius Saturninus (Cic. Planc. 28 and 99; Schol. Bob. 153 Stangl), and aided Cicero during his exile (Cic. Att. 3.14, and 22; Fam. 14.1.3; P. Red. in Sen. 35; Planc. 99; Schol. Bob. 153 Stangl). (Broughton MRR II)
  • Tribunus Plebis 56 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Cic. QF 2.1.3; Planc. 24 and 26 and 60 and 77; Schol. Bob. 165 Stangl. See Lübker p. 817. (Broughton MRR II)
    • p. 257-63 (Thommen 1989)
  • Aedilis Curulis? 55 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • The successful candidate, who was prosecuted by his unsuccessful rival Iuventius Laterensis under the law of Crassus de sodaliciis (Cic. Planc., passim, esp. 49; QF 3. 1. 11 ; Schol. Bob. 142 Stangl; cf. Grueber, CRRBM 1.491f.). See Lübker no. 1. (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)
  • Monetalis 55 (RRC) Expand
    • ref. 432 (RRC)
  • 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)