This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The person that succeeded Lucius Calpurnius Piso (consul 15 BC) can not be Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus nor his son Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus (consul 97 BC), but perhaps his grandson of the same name. Has to be someone AFTER 15 BC. Can someone with expert knowledge correct this please?-- 64.138.237.101 ( talk) 13:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
What is the basis for this cognomen? The name of the article was changed in this edit without any explanation. The Oxford Classical Dictionary & Ronald Syme both omit it. The German Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft ("Calpurnius (99)") calls him "Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi". Tacitus names him "Lucius Piso". I suspect there is no basis for this name element, & may be due to unsupported personal opinion. -- llywrch ( talk) 13:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Name. Λ. Λαλπουρνιος Λ. υι Πισων Φουρτιος Dio ind. l. LIV (the name of Fourtius is corrupted from Frugi, but Klebs doubts whether Piso actually carried this cognomen, since he would otherwise not have been called "pontifex" to distinguish him from other Lucii Pisones; a definite decision is not possible for the time being, but our pontiff's contemporary L. Piso augur No. 74, the son of Cn. Piso Frugi, the cognomen Frugi have led, why the two men of the same name were distinguished by the indication of their priestly dignity). . . .
Piso was the son of L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus Consul in 58, Censor in 50. His sister was therefore Calpurnia, the wife of Caesar. For the two sons he must have had according to Horace's Ars Poetica, Mommsen considers L. Piso and M. Licinius Crassus Frugi cos. 27, who was then adopted by a Licinier. The assumption has many things in it, u. a. also, that a son of this Crassus was named L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi Licinianus, d. H. except for the last cognomen the name of his grandfather. Piso's daughter was probably Calpurnia, the wife of Nonius Asprenas cos. 6; see the family table. A slave of Piso's is named in CIL VI 20743.
The passage in Horace's Ars Poetica is relevant, though. Porphyrio glosses that passage by stating it applies to "Lucius Piso", which led Mommsen & others to assume it meant the Pontifex, when it might also mean the consul of 27 BC. (Yet Syme points out, "Scholiasts vary enormously in value; from facts or rational inference to sad ineptitude." It's possible Porphyrio is entirely wrong, & Horace might not have meant either Piso.) In his paper "The Sons of Piso the Pontifex", (American Journal of Philology, 101 (1980), pp. 333-341), Syme looks at the Pontifex's possible sons. He presents 6 identifiable individuals who could be the sons of the Pontifex -- which include the consul of 7 BC you mention above. Some of these 6 could be separate references to the same man. Then he analyses the passage in Horace, the date of Ars Poetica, & assuming Porphyrio is correct, points out Horace could mean either man. Either Ars was written around 18 BC & best fits Piso the Augur (who is attested as having 2 sons), or around 10 BC & best fits Piso the Pontifex (who then can be argued to have 2 sons, likely to be found as one of the 6 Syme listed).
But returning to my original question. As you pointed out, Drumann led the editors of DGRBM to think he was a "Caesoninus", while Mommsen led the author of the Realencyclopädie to assume the Pontifex was a Frugi, when it appears that the Pontifex was all along simply "L. Calpurnius Piso". (Although Syme states that by this point they dropped the "Calpurnius". I think he had read too much Tacitus -- who often omits the gentilicum to conserve space -- by this point in his life.) -- llywrch ( talk) 20:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
It is probably relevant to this discussion that Syme stated in The Augustan Aristocracy that it was now discovered that M. Licinius Crassus Cos. 14 BCE was now shown to be M. Licinius Crassus Frugi. Owing to this new information, it was now believed that Cos. 14 BCE was not the son of M. Licinius Crassus Cos. 30 BCE, but only his adopted son. Possibly, the consul of 14 BCE was rather the son of M. Pupius M. f. Piso Frugi Pr. 44 BCE, and hence a descendant of the Frugi lineage through that connection. What this means for the current article is that L. Calpurnius Piso the Pontifex Cos. 15 BCE is not possibly the father of M. Licinius Crassus Frugi Cos. 27, so all reference to that connection should be dropped, because Cos. 27 is rather the son of the similarly-named Cos. 14 BCE. Therefore, there is no demonstrable connection with the Frugi lineage of the Calpurnii. On the other hand, I think it is odd that the Pontifex is never referred to as Caesoninus, so that secondary cognomen also should not be made a part of his nomenclature, even if it is true that his father was the consul of 58 BCE. The Calpurnii Pisones are quite a mess to figure out, I think, because they are so numerous and so many bear the same names. I don't think relationships should be posited unless they are directly attested. LCalpurniusPiso ( talk) 18:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
The article, following perhaps New Pauly and other such sources, gives 48 BCE as Piso's birthdate, but that is probably off by one or two years. As far as I know, the main datum giving Piso's birth year is Tacitus's statement that he lived to 80 and that he died in 32 CE. If he completed 80 years as Tacitus states, he must then have been born either in 50 or in 49 BCE. This is because while 32 + 48 = 80, one has to add a year to the calculation to account for the fact that there is no year zero, so then he could not be born later than 49 BCE, or possibly in 50 BCE if he hadn't yet reached his birthday in 32 CE when he died. Interestingly, this also better accords with his consulship of 15 BCE, because were he born in 48 BCE, he would only have been 32 years old on entering his consulship, rather than a more plausible 33 (although this is not decisive, as Augustus sometimes allowed some to enter their consulships earlier, but these were almost always imperial relatives, which Piso the Pontifex was not). So his dates ought to read (50 or 49 BCE - 32 CE). LCalpurniusPiso ( talk) 19:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The person that succeeded Lucius Calpurnius Piso (consul 15 BC) can not be Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus nor his son Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus (consul 97 BC), but perhaps his grandson of the same name. Has to be someone AFTER 15 BC. Can someone with expert knowledge correct this please?-- 64.138.237.101 ( talk) 13:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
What is the basis for this cognomen? The name of the article was changed in this edit without any explanation. The Oxford Classical Dictionary & Ronald Syme both omit it. The German Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft ("Calpurnius (99)") calls him "Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi". Tacitus names him "Lucius Piso". I suspect there is no basis for this name element, & may be due to unsupported personal opinion. -- llywrch ( talk) 13:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Name. Λ. Λαλπουρνιος Λ. υι Πισων Φουρτιος Dio ind. l. LIV (the name of Fourtius is corrupted from Frugi, but Klebs doubts whether Piso actually carried this cognomen, since he would otherwise not have been called "pontifex" to distinguish him from other Lucii Pisones; a definite decision is not possible for the time being, but our pontiff's contemporary L. Piso augur No. 74, the son of Cn. Piso Frugi, the cognomen Frugi have led, why the two men of the same name were distinguished by the indication of their priestly dignity). . . .
Piso was the son of L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus Consul in 58, Censor in 50. His sister was therefore Calpurnia, the wife of Caesar. For the two sons he must have had according to Horace's Ars Poetica, Mommsen considers L. Piso and M. Licinius Crassus Frugi cos. 27, who was then adopted by a Licinier. The assumption has many things in it, u. a. also, that a son of this Crassus was named L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi Licinianus, d. H. except for the last cognomen the name of his grandfather. Piso's daughter was probably Calpurnia, the wife of Nonius Asprenas cos. 6; see the family table. A slave of Piso's is named in CIL VI 20743.
The passage in Horace's Ars Poetica is relevant, though. Porphyrio glosses that passage by stating it applies to "Lucius Piso", which led Mommsen & others to assume it meant the Pontifex, when it might also mean the consul of 27 BC. (Yet Syme points out, "Scholiasts vary enormously in value; from facts or rational inference to sad ineptitude." It's possible Porphyrio is entirely wrong, & Horace might not have meant either Piso.) In his paper "The Sons of Piso the Pontifex", (American Journal of Philology, 101 (1980), pp. 333-341), Syme looks at the Pontifex's possible sons. He presents 6 identifiable individuals who could be the sons of the Pontifex -- which include the consul of 7 BC you mention above. Some of these 6 could be separate references to the same man. Then he analyses the passage in Horace, the date of Ars Poetica, & assuming Porphyrio is correct, points out Horace could mean either man. Either Ars was written around 18 BC & best fits Piso the Augur (who is attested as having 2 sons), or around 10 BC & best fits Piso the Pontifex (who then can be argued to have 2 sons, likely to be found as one of the 6 Syme listed).
But returning to my original question. As you pointed out, Drumann led the editors of DGRBM to think he was a "Caesoninus", while Mommsen led the author of the Realencyclopädie to assume the Pontifex was a Frugi, when it appears that the Pontifex was all along simply "L. Calpurnius Piso". (Although Syme states that by this point they dropped the "Calpurnius". I think he had read too much Tacitus -- who often omits the gentilicum to conserve space -- by this point in his life.) -- llywrch ( talk) 20:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
It is probably relevant to this discussion that Syme stated in The Augustan Aristocracy that it was now discovered that M. Licinius Crassus Cos. 14 BCE was now shown to be M. Licinius Crassus Frugi. Owing to this new information, it was now believed that Cos. 14 BCE was not the son of M. Licinius Crassus Cos. 30 BCE, but only his adopted son. Possibly, the consul of 14 BCE was rather the son of M. Pupius M. f. Piso Frugi Pr. 44 BCE, and hence a descendant of the Frugi lineage through that connection. What this means for the current article is that L. Calpurnius Piso the Pontifex Cos. 15 BCE is not possibly the father of M. Licinius Crassus Frugi Cos. 27, so all reference to that connection should be dropped, because Cos. 27 is rather the son of the similarly-named Cos. 14 BCE. Therefore, there is no demonstrable connection with the Frugi lineage of the Calpurnii. On the other hand, I think it is odd that the Pontifex is never referred to as Caesoninus, so that secondary cognomen also should not be made a part of his nomenclature, even if it is true that his father was the consul of 58 BCE. The Calpurnii Pisones are quite a mess to figure out, I think, because they are so numerous and so many bear the same names. I don't think relationships should be posited unless they are directly attested. LCalpurniusPiso ( talk) 18:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
The article, following perhaps New Pauly and other such sources, gives 48 BCE as Piso's birthdate, but that is probably off by one or two years. As far as I know, the main datum giving Piso's birth year is Tacitus's statement that he lived to 80 and that he died in 32 CE. If he completed 80 years as Tacitus states, he must then have been born either in 50 or in 49 BCE. This is because while 32 + 48 = 80, one has to add a year to the calculation to account for the fact that there is no year zero, so then he could not be born later than 49 BCE, or possibly in 50 BCE if he hadn't yet reached his birthday in 32 CE when he died. Interestingly, this also better accords with his consulship of 15 BCE, because were he born in 48 BCE, he would only have been 32 years old on entering his consulship, rather than a more plausible 33 (although this is not decisive, as Augustus sometimes allowed some to enter their consulships earlier, but these were almost always imperial relatives, which Piso the Pontifex was not). So his dates ought to read (50 or 49 BCE - 32 CE). LCalpurniusPiso ( talk) 19:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)