T. Munatius Plancus Bursa 32

vol. XVI p.551-553

32) T. Munatius Plancus Bursa was L. Plancus nr. 30’s brother (Ascon. Mil. 28 K.-S. = 31 St.). The second cognomen is only given to him by Cicero (Bursa Plancus fam. IX 10, 2. Bursa VII 2, 2; ad Att. VI 1, 10). <50> At the beginning of 703 = 51, when Cicero (fam. VII 2, 3) writes that he hated Munatius more than Clodius because he fought against the latter but defended the former, it’s uncertain whether he is referring to an otherwise unknown defence in some case, or whether he just means some kind of support in party-politics (see also nr. 1). In the year 702 = 52, Munatius was tribune of the plebs, and as tribune he primarily served Cn. Pompeius, <60> especially together with his similar colleagues C. Sallustius Crispus and Q. Pompeius Rufus. The tribunes of the plebs, as usual, stepped into office on 10th December 701 = 53; however, the rest of the elections had not taken place, which meant that from 1st January 702 = 53 onwards, chaos ruled. Munatius and his associates favoured Metellus Scipio and P. Plautius Hypsaeus, who had been endorsed by Pompey, as candidates for the consulship, <page break 551/552> and they opposed T. Annius Milo (Ascon. Mil. 28f. = 31f. 37 = 37); because of this, in the first weeks, Munatius prevented the patricians from gathering in the senate to appoint an interrex (ibid. 27 = 30). Milo’s murder of P. Clodius brought Munatius - who followed Clodius’ example (simiolus Cic. fam. VII 2, 3) - at the forefront of the demagogues. <10> It is not correct that he was the one who brought the victim’s corpse to Rome on 18th January (Schol. Gronov. Mil. 443 Or. = 323 St.); but on the next morning it was indeed Munatius and Pompeius Rufus who brought it out of the house into the forum, put it on show on the rostra, and rallied the public with passionate speeches (Ascon. Mil. 28f. = 31f. 37 = 37. Dio XL 49, 1f. cf. Appian. bell. civ. II 77: τῶν δημάρχων ἔνιοι). The body was burnt on an improvised pyre in the curia; <20> the flames engulfed the building itself and the neighbouring Basilica Porcia; the spreading fire first broke up the masses which Munatius had gathered (Cic. Mil. 12: huius ambusti tr. pl. with the mentions in Ascon. 37 and Schol. Bob. 280 Or. = 115 St. cf. Cic. Phil. XIII 27). After Pompey managed to establish public order as sole consul and the senate decided on legal proceeds against the murderers of Clodius, <30> together with Sallust, Munatius worked against part of the senate’s decision, and on the next day, 1st March, he reported to the people about this in a contio (Ascon. 39; cf. P. Stein Die Senatssitzungen der Ciceronischen Zeit [Diss. Münzer 1930] 53f;). All through March, with his unending rallying, he stirred up the people not only against Milo, but even against his defender Cicero (Cic. Mil. 12; fam. VII 2, 3; cf. ad Att. VI 1, 10. Ascon. 33 = 34f. 45 = 43); <40> he often presented witnesses for the prosecution against Milo to the people (Ascon. 32 = 34), and together with Sallustius and Rufus he tried to get the consul Pompey to have them publicly recognised as victims of attempted murders from Milo (ibid. 33 = 35. 45 = 43). After the three-day handling of the trial against Milo, on the evening of the 7th April Munatius urged on the people, <50> declaring that it would be possible to appear in great numbers where the trial was taking place on the next day - when the verdict was supposed to be decided - and make their opinions and voices heard (ibid. 35 = 36. 37. 46 = 44). Milo was convicted; but Munatius also only played a temporary role. Immediately after his tribunate ended on 10th December, he was charged by Cicero on account of the Lex Pompeia de vi, and was declared guilty in a unanimous verdict (Cic. fam. VII 2, 2f.; Phil. VI 10. XIII 27), <60> even though Pompey - violating his own law - sent in a character reference for him (Plut. Pomp. 55, 4; Cato min. 48, 3. Dio XL 55, 1-4. Without the name of Munatius, with his description as senator nocens et infamis reus Val. Max. VI 2, 5. cf. Mommsen Strafr. 441, 4), even though M. Cato who raised an objection against this was dismissed as a judge by him (Plut. Dio. Val. Max.), and even though Cicero, just like in the trial against Milo, lacked his usual oomph and art (Dio). <page break 552/553> Munatius’ sentencing took place in around January 703 = 51, since at the beginning of February, Cicero replied to a cold congratulations from M. Marius with information about its far-reaching consequences (fam. VII 2, 2f. cf. O. E. Schmidt Briefwechsel des Cic. 71). Munatius moved to Caesar’s province to Ravenna, was magno congiario donatus by him (Cael. in Cic. fam. VIII 1, 4 on 24th May 703 = 51), <10> and at the beginning of the civil war in 705 = 49 he was released from exile and his citizen rights were reinstated (Cic. Phil. VI 10. X 22. XI 14. XIII 27). At the end of September 708 = 46, Munatius somehow took part in organising Caesar’s triumphal games, which Cicero wrote about to Cornificius (fam. XII 18, 2): equidem sic iam obduri, ut ludis Caesaris nostri animo aequissimo viderem T. Plancum, audirem Laberi et Publili poemata. <20> Probably only because Laberius didn’t only compose mimes but also acted in them himself (see Kroll vol. XII p.246f.), Druman (GR² III 592. IV 231) has claimed that Munatius had himself seen as a gladiator; Suet. Caes. 39, 1 reports something of the sort, in conjunction with the tale of Laberius, about only two other noble men, and and Cicero wouldn’t have missed it out when he was looking for everything insulting against Munatius in his Philippics. <30> At the end of December in the same year 708 = 46, he joked the following about the grammarian Nikias in a letter to Dolabella (fam. IX 10, 2): suavissimum συμβιωτήν nostrum praestabo integellum nec committam, ut, si ego eum condemnaro, tu restituas, ne habeat Bursa Plancus, apud quem litteras discat. Here, in Cicero’s judgement and restitution by more powerful man, a parallel seems to be being drawn between Munatius and Nikias; <40> but as a whole, this reference can’t be explained for certain either (see Herzog Histor. Ztschr. CXXV 200, 1), and perhaps both letters referring to Munatius from these months should be interpreted together. The declaration of his annoyance over the fact that Plancus and other Caesariani were enjoying their robbery unpunished one month after Caesar was killed, in mid April 710 = 44 (ad Att. XIV 10, 2 cf. 6, 1), <50> probably refers to this Munatius. In the bellum Mutinense, he was on Antony’s side (Cic. Phil. VI 10. X 22. XI 14. XII 20. XIII 2. 27). He had already took over Pollentia in Liguria in February 711 = 42, and likely wanted to establish a connection with his brother nr. 30 in Gaul at Antony’s request; there, he was attacked, beaten, and driven out by Pontius Aquila, a murderer of Caesar and a general under Dec. Brutus (Cic. Phil. XI 14. XIII 27. Dio XLVI 38, 3, from which Zonar. X 15); <60> Munatius broke his leg in his escape (Cic.). His further fate is unknown.

[F. Münzer.]