THE PISO WHO BECAME EMPEROR (LICINIANUS PISO)

THE PISO WHO BECAME EMPEROR (LICINIANUS PISO)
(Writen 12/23/99, updated 07/15/00)

Another interesting fact in the study of ancient history is that of persons who know aboutthe ‘conspiracy’ against Nero by the Piso family (as the historian Tacitus tells us), manystill do not realize that one member of the Piso family actually became emperor of Romeshortly after Nero’s death. And this person was NOT formally acknowledged as havingbeen emperor by the contemporary historians! Which indicates that those authors weredeliberately trying to keep that fact a secret from those would might get close to findingout the truth about what was really going on.

In any case, this Piso was Licinianus Piso, who had the addition of the name ‘Frugi’ tohis name. Some conjecture that there were two or more branches of the Piso family; theCalpurnii and the Frugii. But all Pisos were Calpurnii, as they all had the same commonancestor - Calpus. So, that the name ‘Frugi’ is added to the name (especially as the end!)is only another way of the authors of the time to confuse and mislead the reader. We haveseen many examples of very distinguishable persons in ancient history as having theirnames ‘chopped’ up and switched around in various ways. So, this was actually a commonway of hiding a person’s true identity.

Licinianus Piso was emperor of Rome for 5 days total; one day as co-emperor with Galbaand four days on his own. Some may think that being emperor for only a matter of a fewdays does not count, and they may use that as a justification in saying something like; "nowonder he was not listed as emperor." But the length of time that one was emperor was ofno excuse for not listing him and publicly announcing that fact, because we have otherexamples of emperors who were such for only a few days as well - including at least onewho was emperor for an even shorter time than Licinianus Piso. That other emperor waswas one for a shorter time was Marius. Marius was emperor in 268 CE for only 2 or 3days. Yet, he is fully and publicly acknowledged.

The historian Suetonius, writing about the year 140 CE, wrote his book called "TheTwelve Caesars." In it, he does not officially include Licinianus Piso as emperor. He listsGalba and even mentions Licinianus Piso, but did not acknowledge him fully by givinga chapter on him as he did the rest of the emperors, even though he could have easilydone that. But there again, is the deliberate action of a historian to downplay the "Piso"name in history and to hide facts about that family. Anyone who reads ancient historywill encounter the uniqueness of it in that it is written in such a way as to ALWAYSleave out critical information about those who are being written about. Though on thesurface ancient history in general appears to be written earnestly and in a form that showsit to the reader as if to purposefully convey information to the reader, at the same time, itdeliberately omits crucial information! One will find this time and time again.
One has to ask, "why is this?" Why is it that ancient history was not written in a mannerin which one may easily find the information that they would need in order to find familyconnections for example? Why is the reader taken to task and left with few options forobtaining important information? It is because this was done this way on purpose and forvery specific reasons. That was to keep the reader from finding out certain things. Andwhat this means is that history itself was not done in the way in which we had been madeto think that it was done. Which is the reason for the need for a new type of scholarshipin this area.

But, yet, while the ancient historians did not write history in a honest and forthrightmanner, they nonetheless did include the true facts of the matter - they just did so in away that most persons who were reading those histories would not be aware of that fact.

According to Tacitus; "Galba spoke further to the same effect, as if he were making anemperor, but everyone else conversed with Piso (Licinianus) as if he had been alreadymade one." And we will see shortly just why that is.

Tacitus says that Licinianus Piso "was Caesar for four days." Meaning four "full" dayson his own without Galba. He was in fact Caesar for five days. Tacitus reveals this to uswhen he says; "Piso, standing on the steps of the palace, called the soldiers together andspoke as follows: It is now five days, my comrades, since, in ignorance of the future, Iwas adopted as Caesar,…"

Licinianus Piso must have been given the titles of both Augustus and Caesar publiclyupon his adoption by Galba for the very brief time between his adoption and the deathof Galba. Though as we will see, he very probably already was in reality an Augustiiand a Caesar. He did, we know, have the same common ancestors as some of those inboth of these royal houses. What is meant here in what is being said is that in morethan one sense, Licinianus Piso was already a "Caesar" before having been made onepublicly by Galba. When we speak of inherited "name/titles" in our studies, as you willlearn, these things (such as ancestry) determine who was entitled to use what names andtitles in public works and they also determined what alias names may be used by theauthors themselves.

At this point in time, you will find very little information in any one place about thisparticular Caesar. However, this article will give you what you need to find out more.There probably has never been any article written about Licinianus Piso that gives asmuch information about him as does this one. So, keep a copy of if for your ownpersonal reference.

Suetonius, as well as Tacitus, gives the figure of five days for the length of time fromPiso’s adoption till his end; "(Galba) calling him (Piso) ‘my son’, he led Piso into theGuard’s Camp, and there formally and publicly adopted him - without, however,mentioning the word ‘bounty’, thus giving Otho an excellent opportunity for his coupd’ e’tat five days later." (Ref. Suetonius, "The Twelve Caesars," under "Galba")

So, by reconstruction of the facts given in the public works left to us by both Tacitusand Suetonius, we find that Galba and Piso must have co-ruled for that first day ofadoption (and perhaps a part of the next day), and Licinianus Piso then ruled out of thepublic eye for four days without Galba.

Now, just for the edification of the public, we will state here that though LicinianusPiso was indeed the ‘Piso’ who became emperor; that is not to say that other membersof the Piso family did not become emperors as well. They just did not do so using the‘Piso’ name. They did this in similar manner to the Julian Caesars who also had othernames before becoming known to the public as ‘Caesars’. As we will point out below,one of the other names that the Julian Caesars had before they started to use the name‘Caesar’ was that of ‘Libo’. So, what we are saying is that Licinianus Piso was theone member of the Piso family who became emperor using the ‘Piso’ name.

Licinianus Piso had at least one well-known and quite verifiable family link to theCaesars and others are certain to be discovered as more research is done on his family.Licinianus Piso’s great, great, grand Aunt, Scribonia 1, was married to Augustus Caesar.(Ref. "Nero, End of a Dynasty," by Griffen, in the form of a fairly detailed stemmachart)

Also worth mentioning is that Licinianus Piso’s great, great, great Grandfather Gnaeus(Cn.) Pompeius (Pompey), ‘the Great’ was married to Julia (Julius Caesar’s daughter),who died in 54 BCE. Pompey the Great then married his third wife Mucia - whichGriffen lists as the mother of Sextus Pompeius (Magnus).

Furthermore, it should be noted that Licinianus Piso could also claim (direct?) descentfrom the Pharaohs by way of Dynanis, the mother of Scribonia 1 (and her brother L.Scribonius Libo?). It also appears that the ancestry of both L. Scribonius Libo and hissister Scribonia 1 through their father C. Scribonius Curio (Libo) shared the samecommon ancestors as the Julian Caesars as one of the former names that the JulianCaesars had before they came to be called ‘Caesars’ was that of ‘Libo’. It may be infact that that common ancestor was Lucius Julius Libo.
Note too, that Cn. Pompeius Magnus Piso (a brother of Licinianus Piso), was marriedto Claudia Antonia - daughter of Claudius Caesar. (Ref. "Nero, End of a Dynasty,"by Griffen)

-----------
End Notes:
There were two other emperors in the year 69 who were emperors for a very short duration.Those were Otho and Vitellius. Just because Piso was emperor for a shorter length of timewas no valid reason to exclude him from the official (public) list of emperors. He wasexcluded for reason only: to hide the fact that a Piso indeed became emperor. So, we callfor the addition of Piso to be added to all future lists of emperors by those who list theRoman emperors from now on.

There are many other emperors who have very short reigns and others of uncertain duration,yet, they are still listed officially as emperors. We know the specific length of time thatLicinianus Piso was emperor. It is just because he was not given full recognition as emperorby Suetonius in his ‘The Twelve Caesars’ that we do not have him listed as an emperor byscholars until now - when we have been the first to do it.

Here is a list of some other emperors who had held office for a very short length of time;
Silbannacus, circa 248 CE, a very short reign. Duration?
=========
Pacatian, circa 248 CE, a very short reign. Duration?
=======
Jotapian, circa 248 CE, a very short reign. Duration?
=======
Saloninus, 259 CE (short reign). Duration?
========
Regalianus, circa 260 CE, a very short reign. Duration?
=========
Marius, 268 CE (for only 2 or 3 days).
=====
Domitianus, circa 268 CE, very short reign. Duration?
=========
Laelianus, 268 CE, a very short reign. Duration?
=======
Quintillus, 270 CE, a short reign. Duration?
=======
Saturninus, circa 280 CE, unknown duration.
========
Neopotianus, 350 CE, for 28 days.
=========

One argument that some persons have regarding Licinianus Piso actually truly havingbeen emperor is that they think that he never received the "Austustus" name. That maybe something that may bother and perplex those of the "Old Classical Scholarship" butnot those who understand that ancient history did not happen in the way that we are usedto thinking it had (i.e., the New Classical Scholarship). There are other ways in whichLicinianus Frugi Piso could have attained the "Augustus" name without that having beenput into the public record and known to all. One of those ways is this. His wife is now seen as a key factor, because it has been revealedthat she was not just anyone, but the daughter of Galba himself. Her name in history isVerania. But in knowing how letters in names were switched around and changed in orderto hide identities (we call this ‘royal language’), we find that Verania was actually "Ferentia"and that name reveals here as daughter of Galba. So, not only was Licinianus Piso Galba’sadopted son and intended successor, but he was also his son-in-law. And this means a lot.Being the emperor’s daughter, she would have received the "Augusta" (feminine form) nameand therefore her husband would also share that name. If she had married him BEFORE hewas adopted by Galba and given the "Caesar" name by Galba, the "Augustus" name wouldnot be "activated" or recognized as ligitimate in terms of his being emperor. But as soon ashe received the "Caesar" name, his "Augustus" name would also become ligitimized and"activated". This means that he could in this instance have become emperor right in frontof the public (without their even knowing it!) just by receiving the "Caesar" name. And thisis what we contend is exactly what had happened or else they would not have had to havehid this as they had. This is the true way that Licinianus Frugi Piso became Roman emperor!There are many things such as this that need to be examined. And ‘history’ is in need of a greatdeal of clarification regarding all of the various details of it. And that, is how Licinianus Piso would have been able to attain the "Augustus" name andhave been a true Roman emperor.Recognized as such by those who knew this, but not by the general public after that timebecause of the efforts of Suetonius and the other ‘historians’ just after that time. Thoughthe public would not be privy to all of this, those who were in rule did know it. And, nowthe rest of us are beginning to see and understand all of this. See the genealogical charts regarding this on The Roman Piso Homepage. http://www.angelfire.com/biz5/piso/main-gen.htm
l------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes: "Verania" is seen as "Ferentia" because of the particulars of the ‘royal language’. Seeing Verania as Ferentia is possible because of the fact that the letter "V" is interchangeablewith "P, and "P" is used interchangeably with "PH", which is the same phonetically as "F".This renders Verania as "Ferania." Vowels are always interchangeable in the royal languageand certain letters may be dropped or added in some names, so now "Ferenia" becomes"Feren(t)ia". More information about ‘royal language’ will be available to the public inupcoming books on the subject.