Digital Prosopography of the Roman Republic

POMP0857 -. Pomponius (20) (Matho)?

Relationships

son of
? M. Pomponius (18) M'. f. M'. n. Matho (cos. 231) (Brennan 2000)
? M'. Pomponius (17) M'. f. M'. n. Matho (cos. 233) (Brennan 2000)
brother of
? M. Pomponius (19) Matho (pr. 204) (DPRR Team)
grandfather of
? M. Pomponius (9) (pr. 161) (DPRR Team)

Career

  • Praetor 217 inter peregrinos, Rome (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • It is difficult to distinguish between M. Pomponius, the Pr. Peregrinus of 217, whose cognomen was probably Matho (D.- G. 5.5, note 6), M. Pomponius Matho, Pr. 216, who had held a praetorship before (Liv. 22.35.5-7). and whose colleagues were all ex-Consuls, M. Pomponius Matho, the Master of Horse under Veturius in 217, and M. Pomponius Matho, Consul in 231. The Capitoline Fasti give little aid, for though the filiation of the Consul of 231 is given as M'. f. M'. n., that of the Master of Horse is not clear, since the stone is so worn (Degrassi 44) that it may be either M'. f. M. n., as read in CIL 1(2), p. 23, or M'. f. M'. n., the correction favored by Mommsen (CIL 1(2), Index, p. 352), and the reading favored by Degrassi (44). The Praetors of 217 and 216 may be the same man since immediate succession in office was permitted during the war, to Consuls (Liv. 27.6.7), and probably to other magistrates, and election in absence could be explained by the absence, frequent during this war, of the Pr. Peregrinus on public business (cf. 215, 213, 210, 209, 208, 206). The Praetor of 217 can be identified with the Master of Horse since there was no rule against appointing a magistrate in office to be Dictator or Master of Horse (Mommsen, Str., 1.514, note 1; 2.174), but in that case it is less likely that the Master of Horse would have been elected in absence to the praetorship of 216 only a few days after his abdication (Liv. 22.34-35). If the Consul of 231 is identified with the Master of Horse he would be senior in standing to the Dictator, who was Consul in 220, a perfectly possible condition but one which does not occur again elsewhere in this period. The Consul of 231 could have held one praetorship before 216 and his second then (D.- G. 5.4, note 7). In that case all four Praetors of 216 were ex-Consuls, an event which, if true, passes strangely unremarked in Livy. All in all, the view of Mommsen and Degrassi, that the Consul of 231 was chosen Master of Horse for the elections for 216, remains the most probable, and the least likely case is that the Master of Horse was elected Praetor for 216. In that event the Praetor of 217 was probably re-elected for 216. But the other possibilities are not completely excluded. See D.- G., 5.4f. (Broughton MRR I)
    • On his identity, see above, note 4. Ordinarily official announcement of a serious defeat was made, in the absence of the Consuls, by the Pr. Urbanus. Since Aemilius held that position it is reasonable to assume that he could not officiate and that his place was taken by the Pr. Peregrinus (Mommsen. Str. 2.130, note 6; D.- G., 5.5, note 8). (Broughton MRR I)
    • Announced the defeat at Lake Trasimene (Liv. 22.7.7-8; cf. Polyb. 3.85.8; Plut. Fab. 3.4). See Lübker, no. 7. (Broughton MRR I)
    • Praetor 217, 216, pro praetore in Ager Gallicus 215? And prorogued 214. See Liv. 22.7.7-8; 22.55.1; 24.10.3, cf. 44.3; MRR 1.244, 249, 256, 260. On the Pomponius, pro praetore at Suessula, who was summoned to aid Marcellus against Hannibal at Nola in 214 (Liv. 24.17.2; MRR 1.260), Weissenborn remarks that he may be M. Pomponius, above, diverted from his command to Suessula and Nola because of the emergency at a time when operations against the Gauls were not being pressed. But De Sanctis (Storia dei Romani 3.2.249, note 119; cf. pp. 247-249, 315, 350) holds that this unnecessary transfer of Pomponius from his assigned station at Ariminum to Suessula and Nola is nothing but late annalistic invention. He was succeeded in the Ager Gallicus in 213 by P. Sempronius Tuditanus (Liv. 24.44.3; MRR 1.263). (Broughton MRR III)
    • p. 727, footnote 24 (Brennan 2000)
  • Praetor 216 (Broughton MRR III) Expand
    • Election and provinces; Liv. 22.35.5-7 (Broughton MRR I)
    • Liv. 22.55.1. On his identity, see 217, note 4. See Lübker, no. 7. (Broughton MRR I)
    • Praetor 217, 216, pro praetore in Ager Gallicus 215? And prorogued 214. See Liv. 22.7.7-8; 22.55.1; 24.10.3, cf. 44.3; MRR 1.244, 249, 256, 260. On the Pomponius, pro praetore at Suessula, who was summoned to aid Marcellus against Hannibal at Nola in 214 (Liv. 24.17.2; MRR 1.260), Weissenborn remarks that he may be M. Pomponius, above, diverted from his command to Suessula and Nola because of the emergency at a time when operations against the Gauls were not being pressed. But De Sanctis (Storia dei Romani 3.2.249, note 119; cf. pp. 247-249, 315, 350) holds that this unnecessary transfer of Pomponius from his assigned station at Ariminum to Suessula and Nola is nothing but late annalistic invention. He was succeeded in the Ager Gallicus in 213 by P. Sempronius Tuditanus (Liv. 24.44.3; MRR 1.263). (Broughton MRR III)
  • Propraetor? 215 Gallia Cisalpina (Broughton MRR III) Expand
    • Since his command in Gaul was prorogued for 214 (Liv. 24.10.3), he must have been Propraetor there this year also. (Broughton MRR I)
    • Praetor 217, 216, pro praetore in Ager Gallicus 215? And prorogued 214. See Liv. 22.7.7-8; 22.55.1; 24.10.3, cf. 44.3; MRR 1.244, 249, 256, 260. On the Pomponius, pro praetore at Suessula, who was summoned to aid Marcellus against Hannibal at Nola in 214 (Liv. 24.17.2; MRR 1.260), Weissenborn remarks that he may be M. Pomponius, above, diverted from his command to Suessula and Nola because of the emergency at a time when operations against the Gauls were not being pressed. But De Sanctis (Storia dei Romani 3.2.249, note 119; cf. pp. 247-249, 315, 350) holds that this unnecessary transfer of Pomponius from his assigned station at Ariminum to Suessula and Nola is nothing but late annalistic invention. He was succeeded in the Ager Gallicus in 213 by P. Sempronius Tuditanus (Liv. 24.44.3; MRR 1.263). (Broughton MRR III)
  • Propraetor 214 Gallia Cisalpina (Broughton MRR III) Expand
    • Imperium prorogued in the ager Gallicus (Liv. 24.10.3, cf. 44.3; see below, note 4; and 217, note 4). (Broughton MRR I)
    • Praetor 217, 216, pro praetore in Ager Gallicus 215? And prorogued 214. See Liv. 22.7.7-8; 22.55.1; 24.10.3, cf. 44.3; MRR 1.244, 249, 256, 260. On the Pomponius, pro praetore at Suessula, who was summoned to aid Marcellus against Hannibal at Nola in 214 (Liv. 24.17.2; MRR 1.260), Weissenborn remarks that he may be M. Pomponius, above, diverted from his command to Suessula and Nola because of the emergency at a time when operations against the Gauls were not being pressed. But De Sanctis (Storia dei Romani 3.2.249, note 119; cf. pp. 247-249, 315, 350) holds that this unnecessary transfer of Pomponius from his assigned station at Ariminum to Suessula and Nola is nothing but late annalistic invention. He was succeeded in the Ager Gallicus in 213 by P. Sempronius Tuditanus (Liv. 24.44.3; MRR 1.263). (Broughton MRR III)

< Back to results