Digital Prosopography of the Roman Republic

NONI2403 M. Nonius (52) Ani. Sufenas

Relationships

son of
? Sex. Nonius (53) Ani. Suffenas (pr. 81) (Brennan 2000)
brother of
? C. Considius (12) Nonianus (son of? M. Considius (13) Nonianus (pr. before 53)) (DPRR Team)
? Sex.? Nonius (B) Sufenas (son of Sex. Nonius (53) Ani. Suffenas (pr. 81)) (DPRR Team)
? M. Considius (13) Nonianus (pr. before 53) (DPRR Team)
? Nonia (C) (daughter of? Sex. Nonius (53) Ani. Suffenas (pr. 81)) (DPRR Team)

Career

  • Monetalis 59 (RRC) Expand
    • ref. 421 (RRC)
  • Quaestor before 56 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Issued coins with the head of Saturn on them (Grueber, CRRBM 1.470), perhaps as Quaestor, perhaps as Monetalis, and probably by this year, since he held the tribunate in 56. (Broughton MRR II)
    • n MRR 2.447 (with date to 63), and Index, 595, refer also to Crawford, RRC 1.445-446, no. 421 (Sufenas), 59 B.C. Quaestor. Date uncertain, since his coinage, issued SC, provides no evidence that he was then a quaestor (Crawford, RRC loc. Cit., and 1.88, note 3). Tr. Pl. 56? His tribunate is an inference from his prosecution in 54, along with the tribune of 56, C. Porcius Cato (6) for ambitus and/or interference with the elections (Cic. Att. 4.15.4; cf. 4.16.5-6; see Gruen, LGRR 314-315), most probably the former, as he, Cato, and Procilius (q.v.) were all tried in different quaestiones the same day. See L. R. Taylor, Athenaeum 42, 1964, 12-28, esp. 19, note 19; and J. Linderski, Studi E. Volterra 2.281-302, esp. 284ff. and 302. Praetor 55? His praetorship and its date depend on three factors: first, moving the curule aedileship of Cn. Plancius and A. Plautius from 54, as in MRR 2.223, to 55, removes the possibility that Nonius could have held it then (cf. 2.216) (unless perhaps he was an aedile of the plebs, since they also had curule chairs after Sulla; L. R. Taylor, AJPh 60, 1939, 194-202; see below); second, delay of the elections for 55 to an interregnum in the early part of that year, when the new consuls Pompey and Crassus could aid their supporters (Dio 39.32), made it possible for a tribune of 56, leaving office by December 10, to become a candidate for a curule magistracy, be it aedileship or praetorship, in 55 (see below, on Cn. Plancius and A. Plautius); third, and least certain, it is necessary to identify Sufenas with the Nonius Struma in Catullus 52 (Sella in curuli Struma Nonius sedet), taking the word struma as a nickname and assuming that the Leges Annales allowed Sufenas to advance from tribunate to praetorship (Taylor, and Linderski, above). This fits in nicely, in view of the senatorial decree of 53 which created an interval of five years between office in Rome and provincial command, with the governorship of a M. Nonius (2.343) in an eastern province, probably Macedonia, in 51 and 50 (Shackleton Bailey, CLA 3.246, on Att. 6.1.13), or the imperium of a Sufenas who is listed in Att. 8.15.3, as having a military command in March 49, but hardly with both (Shackleton Bailey, loc. Cit.). There may therefore have been two contemporary Nonii, apart from the Nonii Asprenates, who do not appear until 46. Both must have attained to praetorships and one (Struma) almost certainly before the death of Catullus (54?). The cognomen may help to identify the career of the other. As Cn. Tremellius Scrofa had been given charge in 52-51 of a minor eastern province, probably Crete and Cyrene, the M. Nonius named in Att. 6.1.13 was governor of Macedonia (Shackleton Bailey, CLA 1.246). Against L. R. Taylor’s identification of Sufenas with Struma Nonius (see above), Shackleton Bailey notes that Sufenas was one of a number of Pompeians who held imperium in Italy in March 49 (Att. 8.15.3) and identifies “Struma” Nonius with the provincial governor. (Broughton MRR III)
  • Tribunus Plebis? 56 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Prosecuted with C. Cato in 54 for his part in delaying the elections in this year (Cic. Att. 4.15.4, cf. 4.16.5-6; Dio 39.27.3; cf. 27-30). (Broughton MRR II)
    • n MRR 2.447 (with date to 63), and Index, 595, refer also to Crawford, RRC 1.445-446, no. 421 (Sufenas), 59 B.C. Quaestor. Date uncertain, since his coinage, issued SC, provides no evidence that he was then a quaestor (Crawford, RRC loc. Cit., and 1.88, note 3). Tr. Pl. 56? His tribunate is an inference from his prosecution in 54, along with the tribune of 56, C. Porcius Cato (6) for ambitus and/or interference with the elections (Cic. Att. 4.15.4; cf. 4.16.5-6; see Gruen, LGRR 314-315), most probably the former, as he, Cato, and Procilius (q.v.) were all tried in different quaestiones the same day. See L. R. Taylor, Athenaeum 42, 1964, 12-28, esp. 19, note 19; and J. Linderski, Studi E. Volterra 2.281-302, esp. 284ff. and 302. Praetor 55? His praetorship and its date depend on three factors: first, moving the curule aedileship of Cn. Plancius and A. Plautius from 54, as in MRR 2.223, to 55, removes the possibility that Nonius could have held it then (cf. 2.216) (unless perhaps he was an aedile of the plebs, since they also had curule chairs after Sulla; L. R. Taylor, AJPh 60, 1939, 194-202; see below); second, delay of the elections for 55 to an interregnum in the early part of that year, when the new consuls Pompey and Crassus could aid their supporters (Dio 39.32), made it possible for a tribune of 56, leaving office by December 10, to become a candidate for a curule magistracy, be it aedileship or praetorship, in 55 (see below, on Cn. Plancius and A. Plautius); third, and least certain, it is necessary to identify Sufenas with the Nonius Struma in Catullus 52 (Sella in curuli Struma Nonius sedet), taking the word struma as a nickname and assuming that the Leges Annales allowed Sufenas to advance from tribunate to praetorship (Taylor, and Linderski, above). This fits in nicely, in view of the senatorial decree of 53 which created an interval of five years between office in Rome and provincial command, with the governorship of a M. Nonius (2.343) in an eastern province, probably Macedonia, in 51 and 50 (Shackleton Bailey, CLA 3.246, on Att. 6.1.13), or the imperium of a Sufenas who is listed in Att. 8.15.3, as having a military command in March 49, but hardly with both (Shackleton Bailey, loc. Cit.). There may therefore have been two contemporary Nonii, apart from the Nonii Asprenates, who do not appear until 46. Both must have attained to praetorships and one (Struma) almost certainly before the death of Catullus (54?). The cognomen may help to identify the career of the other. As Cn. Tremellius Scrofa had been given charge in 52-51 of a minor eastern province, probably Crete and Cyrene, the M. Nonius named in Att. 6.1.13 was governor of Macedonia (Shackleton Bailey, CLA 1.246). Against L. R. Taylor’s identification of Sufenas with Struma Nonius (see above), Shackleton Bailey notes that Sufenas was one of a number of Pompeians who held imperium in Italy in March 49 (Att. 8.15.3) and identifies “Struma” Nonius with the provincial governor. (Broughton MRR III)
    • p. 257-63 (Thommen 1989)
  • Praetor? c. 55 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • 1 M. Nonius Sufenas was governor of an eastern province in Feb. 50 (Cic. Att. 6.1.13) and very probably in 51. As he held the quaestorship in 62 and the tribunate of the Plebs in 56, Pompey's law establishing an interval of five years between city magistracy and provincial command can hardly have been applied to him. In fact, it may not have been applied to the magistrates of 52 at all. Accordingly 1 suggest 52 as the year of his praetorship and 51 and 50 for his promagistracy. (Broughton MRR II)
    • See 51, Promagistrates. (Broughton MRR II)
    • Quaestor at Ostia, 104 or 105. An interval between quaestorship and tribunate during which he reformed is suggested by Diodorus (36.12; cf. Gruen, RPCC 163, note 35). Sumner (Orators 119) notes also the rule (which Saturninus might have circumvented) which prevents magistrates in office from becoming candidates before expiration of their term (Mommsen, StR 1?.531-535). But his replacement in charge of the grain supply at Ostia by no less a person than the Princeps Senatus, M. Aemilius Scaurus (MRR 1.560), points to a time of crisis. While 105 was such a year (Gran. Lic. 33.25-27, ed. Criniti p. 12), the defeat at Arausio (late in 105) and the effect on the annona of the slave revolt in Sicily point more strongly to 104 than to 105 (Sumner, loc. cit.). Crawford (RRC 1.323-324, no. 317) dates his coinage to 104. Tribune of the Plebs, 103, 100. The grain law of Saturninus should more probably be dated to his first tribunate in 103 than to his second in 100, as in MRR 1.575, 578, note 3, and may be considered a measure to meet conditions caused by the slave revolt in Sicily, perhaps also a response to his removal from that charge when quaestor at Ostia in 104 (MRR 1.560; see above). A date in 103 is favored by Last (CAH 9.165), Passerini (Athenaeum 12, 1934, 107143), and Balsdon (PBSR 14, 1938, 98-114, who would admit even 104). See below, on the quaestorships of L. Calpurnius Piso (Caesoninus) (89) and Q. Servilius Caepio (50). The settlement of Marian veterans in Africa after .the Jugurthine war (MRR 1.563, 565, note 3) has been further confirmed by the discovery at Thuburnica of an inscription honoring Marius as conditor coloniae (sic) (P. Quoniam, CRAI 1950, 383-386-AEpig. 1951, no. 81). These settlements were dated to the first tribunate of Saturninus in 103 by E. Gabba (Athenaeum 29, 1951, 16, and note 1; and in his ed. of App. BC 1.29, 130) rather than 100, since he interpreted Cic. Balb. 48, and Leg. 2.14, to mean that the legislation of 100 was annulled. Passerini (Athenaeum 12, 1934, 348351) and Badian (Gnomon 33, 1961, 495) hold that they mean the opposite; see now E. Gabba, Republican Rome, the Army and the Allies 199-200, note 167; J. Linderski, ""A Witticism of Appuleius Saturninus,"" RFIC 111, 1983, 457-458, note 1. The colony of Eporedia is not a test case since it was founded at the recommendation of the Xviri s. f. (Puny NH 3.123; Fraccaro, Opuscula 3.98; Gabba, Athenaeum 33, 1955, 225-230). In any case, given Marius' preference for' fresh troops for his campaigns in the north (Frontin. Str. 4.2.2), the African settlements may well be dated to 103. If so, the commissions to which C. Iulius Caesar Strabo (135) and C. Iulius Caesar (130), the dictator's father, belonged (see MRR 1.577 and 578, note 6) may be dated before 100, thus making room for earlier dates in their careers. Appian dates the death of Saturninus on the day after the consular elections for 99 had begun with the murder of Glaucia's rival Memmius and the other disorders attendant upon Glaucia's illegal candidacy, and on the day of his own entrance upon his third tribunate (i.e., December 10, accepted in MRR 1.576). E. Gabba on Appian BC 1.32-33 expressed doubts (accepted by Badian, Gnomon 33, 1961, 494, and Historia 11, 1962, 219, note 87; and Gruen, Historia 15, 1966, 33, note 6, and RPCC 186-189) in favor of an earlier season, for the following reasons: (1) December is an unusually late date for consular elections; (2) C. Saufeius is termed a quaestor (see below); (3) in Val. Max. 3.2.18, L. Equitius is described as tribunus plebis designatus, while according to Cicero (Rab. Perd. 20) all the tribunes except Saturninus were called by the SCU to the defense of the state; (4) P. Furius, who is described in Dio 28, fr. 95.3, as a supporter of Saturninus who later deserted him, would on Appian's dating be a tribune of 99 (see below, on P. Furius [22]); and (5) the text of Auct. Vir. Ill. 73.10, as well as the cutting of the water conduits to the Capitoline, point to a warmer season than December. R. Seager has countered most of these points in CR 18, 1968, 9-10. In the pre- Sullan period elections late in the year are not so surprising. The reading of the text in Auct. Vir. Ill., maximo aestu, is merely an emendation of the unintelligible mss readings questu and gusto (astu might be possible). There is no evidence that P. Furius was a colleague when he was supporting Saturninus, and prompt action will explain his actions between December 10 and the end of Marius' consular year, One item remains unexplained and may be decisive; C. Saufeius (3; see MRR 2.2), if quaestor in 100, would no longer be in office on December 10, since his term had ended on December 5, and he could not be quaestor designate for 99, for at his death the consular elections for 99 had not yet been completed and so, although presumably tribunes and aediles of the plebs had been elected earlier, the elections for praetors, curule aediles, and quaestors had not yet been held. Saufeius' quaestorship points to a date before December 5, 100. On Saufeius, see also Badian, Chiron 14, 1984, 101-147, esp. 106. Badian interprets the recourse of Saturninus and his associates to the Capitolium as an attempt, after Glaucia's illegal candidacy was refused (Cic. Brut. 224, si rationem eius haberi licere iudicatum esset, presumably by Marius), to call an assembly there and secure for him an exemption from the leges annales. If the date given by Appian and accepted in MRR for the deaths of Saturninus and his associates should be placed earlier in the year, as seems very probable, the dates of other magistrates should be changed as follows: Tribunes of the Plebs. Tranfer from 99 to 100: L. Appuleius Saturninus (29) and L. Equitius (3), both designated for 99, but killed before taking office, P. Furius (22) (MRR 2.2), Q. Pompeius Rufus (31) (MRR 2.2), M. Porcius Cato (12) (MRR 2.2). Quaestors. Transfer from 99 to 100: C. Saufeius (3) (MRR 2.2). See above. Tribunes of the Plebs. Transfer from 98 to 99: C. Appuleius Decianus (21) (MRR 2.4-5), Q. Calidius (5) (MRR 2.4; cf. 6, not 4: possibly still in 98, when Metellus Numidicus returned from exile), C. Canuleius (3) (MRR 2.5, 6, note 5). On these tribunes now see Gruen, Historia 15, 1966, 32-38. These lists are also based on the assumption that at the death of Saturninus the tribunicial elections had been held, and that the consular ones were interrupted by the murder of Memmius, perhaps after the election of M. Antonius who was said to be certain. Badian notes that in Rab. Perd. 26 Cicero does call him cos. desig. (Broughton MRR III)
    • n MRR 2.447 (with date to 63), and Index, 595, refer also to Crawford, RRC 1.445-446, no. 421 (Sufenas), 59 B.C. Quaestor. Date uncertain, since his coinage, issued SC, provides no evidence that he was then a quaestor (Crawford, RRC loc. Cit., and 1.88, note 3). Tr. Pl. 56? His tribunate is an inference from his prosecution in 54, along with the tribune of 56, C. Porcius Cato (6) for ambitus and/or interference with the elections (Cic. Att. 4.15.4; cf. 4.16.5-6; see Gruen, LGRR 314-315), most probably the former, as he, Cato, and Procilius (q.v.) were all tried in different quaestiones the same day. See L. R. Taylor, Athenaeum 42, 1964, 12-28, esp. 19, note 19; and J. Linderski, Studi E. Volterra 2.281-302, esp. 284ff. and 302. Praetor 55? His praetorship and its date depend on three factors: first, moving the curule aedileship of Cn. Plancius and A. Plautius from 54, as in MRR 2.223, to 55, removes the possibility that Nonius could have held it then (cf. 2.216) (unless perhaps he was an aedile of the plebs, since they also had curule chairs after Sulla; L. R. Taylor, AJPh 60, 1939, 194-202; see below); second, delay of the elections for 55 to an interregnum in the early part of that year, when the new consuls Pompey and Crassus could aid their supporters (Dio 39.32), made it possible for a tribune of 56, leaving office by December 10, to become a candidate for a curule magistracy, be it aedileship or praetorship, in 55 (see below, on Cn. Plancius and A. Plautius); third, and least certain, it is necessary to identify Sufenas with the Nonius Struma in Catullus 52 (Sella in curuli Struma Nonius sedet), taking the word struma as a nickname and assuming that the Leges Annales allowed Sufenas to advance from tribunate to praetorship (Taylor, and Linderski, above). This fits in nicely, in view of the senatorial decree of 53 which created an interval of five years between office in Rome and provincial command, with the governorship of a M. Nonius (2.343) in an eastern province, probably Macedonia, in 51 and 50 (Shackleton Bailey, CLA 3.246, on Att. 6.1.13), or the imperium of a Sufenas who is listed in Att. 8.15.3, as having a military command in March 49, but hardly with both (Shackleton Bailey, loc. Cit.). There may therefore have been two contemporary Nonii, apart from the Nonii Asprenates, who do not appear until 46. Both must have attained to praetorships and one (Struma) almost certainly before the death of Catullus (54?). The cognomen may help to identify the career of the other. As Cn. Tremellius Scrofa had been given charge in 52-51 of a minor eastern province, probably Crete and Cyrene, the M. Nonius named in Att. 6.1.13 was governor of Macedonia (Shackleton Bailey, CLA 1.246). Against L. R. Taylor’s identification of Sufenas with Struma Nonius (see above), Shackleton Bailey notes that Sufenas was one of a number of Pompeians who held imperium in Italy in March 49 (Att. 8.15.3) and identifies “Struma” Nonius with the provincial governor. (Broughton MRR III)
  • Promagistrate 51 Crete?, Macedonia? (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Governor of a province in the East (Cic. Att. 6.1.13, Feb. 20, 50; cf. 8. 15.3), probably Crete and Cyrene or Macedonia. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Promagistrate 50 Crete?, Macedonia? (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Cic. Att. 6.1.13. See 51, Promagistrates. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Promagistrate 49 Crete?, Macedonia? (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • See 51, and 50, Promagistrates. He was still cum imperio in 49 (Cic. Att. 8.15.3). (Broughton MRR II)

< Back to results