Digital Prosopography of the Roman Republic

VIBI2495 C. Vibius (16) C. f. C. n. Tro.? Pansa Caetronianus

Life Dates

  • 89?, birth (Rüpke 2005)
  • 43, death - violent (Broughton MRR II) Expand

    DOW sustained at B. of Forum Gallorum.

Relationships

son of
? C. Vibius (15) C. f. Pansa (sen. 82) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Dio XLV 17.1

adopted son of
? C. Vibius (15) C. f. Pansa (sen. 82) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Dio XLV 17.1

married to
Fufia (20) (daughter of Q. Fufius (10) Q. f. C. n. Pob. Calenus (cos. 47)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Cic. ad Brut. I 10.1, Cic. Phil. VIII 19, Cic. Phil. X 6

Career

  • Tribunus Plebis 51 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • 1 Pansa's name is established from CIL 6.37077 (cf. Dio 46, Index, Capronianus). (Broughton MRR II)
    • Vetoed several anti-Caesarian resolutions of the Senate (Cael. in Cic. Fam. 8.8.6-8). See Lübker no. 6. (Broughton MRR II)
    • p. 257-63 (Thommen 1989)
  • Aedilis? 48 (Broughton MRR III) Expand
    • Grueber suggests that the Ceres type on his coins indicates that he was Aedile (of the Plebs) in this year (CRRBM 1.509-510). See Dio 41.36.2, who says there were no Aediles in the city. (Broughton MRR II)
    • Cos. 43. He was in Rome in 48 and early 47 (Cic. Au. 11.6.3, and 14.3), and issued coins in 48. In MRR 2.455, and Index, 634, note Crawford, RRC 1.464-465, no. 449, 48 B.C. The suggestion in MRR 2.258, 49 B.C., that he was an aed. pl. that,year, since it was based on the coins, should be withdrawn. But against Dio's statement that there were then no aediles in the city (41.36.2), note Cicero's remark in Att. 9.12.3, March 20: aediles ludos parant. As to an aedileship in 48, Crawford remarks: The coins provide no evidence that he was an aedile. But Sumner grants that, being present in Rome, he may have had some magistracy (Phoenix 25, 1971, 255). As to the possibility of a praetorship, Sumner has shown that under Caesar his proconsulship in Bithynia and Pontus in 47 and 46 is no proof that he had been a praetor before it (Sumner, op. cit.; see also Badian, Phoenix 25, 1971, 141). Procos. Cisalpine Gaul, 45-44. He left the city paludatus on December 30, 45 (Cic. Fam. 15.17.3), but must have remained near since he was still about on March 7, 45 (Att. 12.14.4), and did not set out to succeed Brutus until March 15 (Att. 12.19.3). See Shackleton Bailey, CLF 2.378. On his public burial after his death while consul in war against Antony in 43, add in MRR 2.336, references to CIL 6.37077-ILS 8890-ILLRP 421.[220x] (Broughton MRR III)
  • Moneyer 48 (RRC) Expand
    • Cos. 43. He was in Rome in 48 and early 47 (Cic. Au. 11.6.3, and 14.3), and issued coins in 48. In MRR 2.455, and Index, 634, note Crawford, RRC 1.464-465, no. 449, 48 B.C. The suggestion in MRR 2.258, 49 B.C., that he was an aed. pl. that,year, since it was based on the coins, should be withdrawn. But against Dio's statement that there were then no aediles in the city (41.36.2), note Cicero's remark in Att. 9.12.3, March 20: aediles ludos parant. As to an aedileship in 48, Crawford remarks: The coins provide no evidence that he was an aedile. But Sumner grants that, being present in Rome, he may have had some magistracy (Phoenix 25, 1971, 255). As to the possibility of a praetorship, Sumner has shown that under Caesar his proconsulship in Bithynia and Pontus in 47 and 46 is no proof that he had been a praetor before it (Sumner, op. cit.; see also Badian, Phoenix 25, 1971, 141). Procos. Cisalpine Gaul, 45-44. He left the city paludatus on December 30, 45 (Cic. Fam. 15.17.3), but must have remained near since he was still about on March 7, 45 (Att. 12.14.4), and did not set out to succeed Brutus until March 15 (Att. 12.19.3). See Shackleton Bailey, CLF 2.378. On his public burial after his death while consul in war against Antony in 43, add in MRR 2.336, references to CIL 6.37077-ILS 8890-ILLRP 421.[220x] (Broughton MRR III)
    • ref. 449 (RRC)
    • ref. 451 (RRC)
  • Proconsul 47 Pontus, Bithynia (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Governor, probably Proconsul, in Bithynia in 47 and 46 (B.M.Cat., Bithynia and Pontus 110, and 153; Head, HN² 510, and 516f., coins of Apameia Myrleia, Nicaea, and Nicomedia). See Magic, Roman Rule in Asia Minor 2.1270, note 40; and 46, Promagistrates. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Proconsul 46 Pontus, Bithynia, Pontus, Bithynia (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Governor, probably Proconsul, of Bithynia and Pontus (coins of Apameia Myrleia, Nicaea, and Nicomedia, Head, HN² 510, 516-517; B.M.Cat. Bithynia 110, 153). He returned before the end of the year (Cic. Lig. 1 and 7). See Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, 2.1270, note 40. (Broughton MRR II)
    • Cos. 43. He was in Rome in 48 and early 47 (Cic. Au. 11.6.3, and 14.3), and issued coins in 48. In MRR 2.455, and Index, 634, note Crawford, RRC 1.464-465, no. 449, 48 B.C. The suggestion in MRR 2.258, 49 B.C., that he was an aed. pl. that,year, since it was based on the coins, should be withdrawn. But against Dio's statement that there were then no aediles in the city (41.36.2), note Cicero's remark in Att. 9.12.3, March 20: aediles ludos parant. As to an aedileship in 48, Crawford remarks: The coins provide no evidence that he was an aedile. But Sumner grants that, being present in Rome, he may have had some magistracy (Phoenix 25, 1971, 255). As to the possibility of a praetorship, Sumner has shown that under Caesar his proconsulship in Bithynia and Pontus in 47 and 46 is no proof that he had been a praetor before it (Sumner, op. cit.; see also Badian, Phoenix 25, 1971, 141). Procos. Cisalpine Gaul, 45-44. He left the city paludatus on December 30, 45 (Cic. Fam. 15.17.3), but must have remained near since he was still about on March 7, 45 (Att. 12.14.4), and did not set out to succeed Brutus until March 15 (Att. 12.19.3). See Shackleton Bailey, CLF 2.378. On his public burial after his death while consul in war against Antony in 43, add in MRR 2.336, references to CIL 6.37077-ILS 8890-ILLRP 421.[220x] (Broughton MRR III)
  • Augur? 45 to 44 (Rüpke 2005)
  • Proconsul 45 Gallia Cisalpina (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Governor, probably Proconsul, in Cisalpine Gaul, in succession to Marcus Brutus (Cic. Att. 12.27.3; Fam. 15.17.3; cf. Att. 12.14.4, and 19.3; Fam. 15.19.3). See Sternkopf, Hermes 47 (1912) 328. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Proconsul 44 Gallia Cisalpina (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • See 45, Promagistrates. He returned from Cisalpine Gaul. at some time before April 21 when he appeared in Campania (Cic. Att. 14.11.2, and 19.2). See Lübker no. 2. (Broughton MRR II)
    • Cos. 43. He was in Rome in 48 and early 47 (Cic. Au. 11.6.3, and 14.3), and issued coins in 48. In MRR 2.455, and Index, 634, note Crawford, RRC 1.464-465, no. 449, 48 B.C. The suggestion in MRR 2.258, 49 B.C., that he was an aed. pl. that,year, since it was based on the coins, should be withdrawn. But against Dio's statement that there were then no aediles in the city (41.36.2), note Cicero's remark in Att. 9.12.3, March 20: aediles ludos parant. As to an aedileship in 48, Crawford remarks: The coins provide no evidence that he was an aedile. But Sumner grants that, being present in Rome, he may have had some magistracy (Phoenix 25, 1971, 255). As to the possibility of a praetorship, Sumner has shown that under Caesar his proconsulship in Bithynia and Pontus in 47 and 46 is no proof that he had been a praetor before it (Sumner, op. cit.; see also Badian, Phoenix 25, 1971, 141). Procos. Cisalpine Gaul, 45-44. He left the city paludatus on December 30, 45 (Cic. Fam. 15.17.3), but must have remained near since he was still about on March 7, 45 (Att. 12.14.4), and did not set out to succeed Brutus until March 15 (Att. 12.19.3). See Shackleton Bailey, CLF 2.378. On his public burial after his death while consul in war against Antony in 43, add in MRR 2.336, references to CIL 6.37077-ILS 8890-ILLRP 421.[220x] (Broughton MRR III)
  • Augur 43 (Rüpke 2005) Expand
    • Both Hirtius and Pansa are attested for 43 (Cic. Phil. 7.12, Hirtius; Fam. 12.25a.6). In the Pro Ligario, which was delivered in the autumn of 46, Cicero mentions Pansa (1 and 7), but does not term him a colleague. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Consul 43 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • CIL 5.5832-ILS 2338; CIL 8.22640, 1; 10.8093-ILS 5539; Fast. Cap., Degrassi 58f., 134, 502f.; Fast. Amit., ibid. 170f.; Fast. Amer., ibid. 242; Fast. Colot., ibid. 274f.; Kal. Praenest., Jan. 7, CIL 12.1, p. 231; Varro De Gent. Pop. Rom. fr. 9 Peter; Res Gest. D. Aug. 1; Nic. Dam. Vit. Caes. 22, FGrH 2A.406; Suet. Tib. 5; Tac. Dial. 17; Plut. Aem. 38.1; App. BC 3.50; Dio 45.17.1; 46, Index, with # as Pansa's cognomen; 47, Index; Obseq. 69; Eutrop. 7.1; Chr. 354. Fast. Hyd.; Chr. Pasc.; Oros. 6.18.3; Cassiod.; Solin. 1.32, p. 9 M; on Pansa, CIL 6.37077, C. Vibio C. f. Pasae Caetronian. Cos.; and on Hirtius, Bull. Com. 66 (1938) 269, cf. Van Buren, AJA 44 (1940) 377; Ann. Epig. 1940, no. 41; 1941, no. 102; 1945, no. 140. After much debate in January the Senate charged both Consuls with the task of raising levies and of preparing for military operations against Antony in order to relieve Decimus Brutus at Mutina (Cic. Phil. 5.1 and 31-34; 6.1; 7.2 and 13 and 23-24; 8.4; 10.21; 11.24; 13.5 and 23; 14.5; Fam. 11.8.2; 12.5.2; Ad Brut. 2.4.4; App. BC 3.50, and 65; Dio 45.17.1; 46.29). In that month Hirtius began a slow advance toward Cisalpine Gaul, uniting with and in general taking superior command over the forces of Octavian, yet still attempting to leave some opening for a settlement with Antony (Cic. Phil. 5.32 and 53; 7.11-12; 8.5-6; 10.16 and 21; 13.22ff., esp. 46-48; 14.4; Cic. Ad Caes. Iun. fr. 13 Tyrrell and Purser; Ad Brut. 2.1.1; Fam. 12.4.1, and 5.2; Ad Brut. 1.10.2; Plut. Cic. 45.3; Ant. 17.1; App. BC 3.65, cf. 76; Dio 46.33-36, esp. 35.5-6; see Promagistrates, on Caesar, and on Decimus Brutus). Meantime Pansa was active in raising levies, and continued in charge of business in Rome. Upon the abrogation of much of the Antonian legislation (Cic. Phil. 5. 10; 10. 17, and on the Lex Antonia Agraria, see Phil. 6.14; 11.13), Pansa carried fresh measures to confirm the veteran colonies (Cic. Phil. 13.31), and probably also measures to confirm Caesar's acts and to abolish the office of Dictator (Phil. 5.10; 10.17). He presided over the various debates regarding Antony's status, the legitimizing of the command of Brutus in Macedonia, the recognition of Sextus Pompey, and the command against Dolabella in Asia and Syria (in the latter case his own expectation of a province brought him into conflict with Cicero's proposal of a nwius imperium for Cassius) (Cic. Phil. 5.53; 7.1 and 5-9; 12.2 and 15 and 18; Fam. 12.7. 1, and 25.1; Ad Brut. 1.10; 2.4, and 5.2; Dio 46.36.2; see Promagistrates, on M. Brutus, Cassius, Sex. Pompey, Dolabella, and M. Antonius). Pansa left Rome about March 19, intending to join Hirtius in Cisalpine Gaul, but Antony's attempt to surprise him led first to a defeat for Pansa's army of recruits, and then to a serious reverse at Forum Gallorum for Antony himself at the hands of Hirtius and Octavian (Cic. Fam. 10.30, and 33.3-4; Ad Brut. 1.3a; Phil. 14.26-27 and 36- 37; Liv. Per. 119; Frontin. Str. 2.5.39; Suet. Aug. 10.3; Plut. Cic. 45.3; Ant. 17.1; App. BC 3.66-70; Dio 46.37.4- 7; Oros. 6.18.3-4; Zonar. 10. 14; cf. Flor. 2.15; and on the date of the battle, Fer. Cum., ILS 108; Ovid Fast. 4.625-628). All three commanders were acclaimed Imperatores, and in Rome the Senate voted a supplicatio, and a memorial to the fallen (Cic. Phil. 14.6 and 11-12 and 22-29 and 36-38; Ovid Fast. 4.675-676; Dio 46.38.1-2; cf. Fer. Cum., ILS 108, on Caesar). In a second battle at Mutina on April 21 Hirtius and Octavian again defeated Antony, who raised the siege of Mutina and retreated hastily to the west, but Hirtius fell in the battle, and Pansa died shortly afterwards (April 23) of wounds received at Forum Gallorum (Cic. Fam. 10.17.2, and 33.4; 11.9.1, and 10.2, and 13.1; 12.25a; Ad Brut. 1.2.2, and 3a, and 4. 1; Ad Caes. Iun. fr. 22 Tyrrell and Purser; Liv. Per. 119; Res Gest. D. Aug. 1; Ovid Trist. 4.10.6; Tibull. 3.5.18; Vell. 2.61.4; Suet. Aug. 11, and cf. on the suspicions against Octavian, Brutus in Cic. Ad Brut. 1.6.2, and Tac. Ann. 1.10, and Dio 46.39.1; Tac. Dial. 17; 7; Plut. Cic. 45.3; Ant. 17.1; App. BC 3.71-76; Dio 46.33.5, and 38.5-7, and 39.1; Eutrop. 7.1; Oros. 6.18.5; Zonar. 10.14- 15). The two Consuls received public burial in Rome in the Campus Martius (Cic. Ad Brut. 1.15.8; Liv. Per. 119; Val. Max. 5.2.10; Vell. 2.62.4; cf. CIL 6.37077; Bull. Com. 66 [1938] 269). (Broughton MRR II)
    • Cos. 43. He was in Rome in 48 and early 47 (Cic. Au. 11.6.3, and 14.3), and issued coins in 48. In MRR 2.455, and Index, 634, note Crawford, RRC 1.464-465, no. 449, 48 B.C. The suggestion in MRR 2.258, 49 B.C., that he was an aed. pl. that,year, since it was based on the coins, should be withdrawn. But against Dio's statement that there were then no aediles in the city (41.36.2), note Cicero's remark in Att. 9.12.3, March 20: aediles ludos parant. As to an aedileship in 48, Crawford remarks: The coins provide no evidence that he was an aedile. But Sumner grants that, being present in Rome, he may have had some magistracy (Phoenix 25, 1971, 255). As to the possibility of a praetorship, Sumner has shown that under Caesar his proconsulship in Bithynia and Pontus in 47 and 46 is no proof that he had been a praetor before it (Sumner, op. cit.; see also Badian, Phoenix 25, 1971, 141). Procos. Cisalpine Gaul, 45-44. He left the city paludatus on December 30, 45 (Cic. Fam. 15.17.3), but must have remained near since he was still about on March 7, 45 (Att. 12.14.4), and did not set out to succeed Brutus until March 15 (Att. 12.19.3). See Shackleton Bailey, CLF 2.378. On his public burial after his death while consul in war against Antony in 43, add in MRR 2.336, references to CIL 6.37077-ILS 8890-ILLRP 421.[220x] (Broughton MRR III)

< Back to results