Licinii Crassi (50ff.)

vol. XIII p.245-250

50ff.) The Licinii Crassi

The Licinii Crassi are the most influential branch of the Licinii gens, <60> and they were at their peak in the time following the 2nd Punic War. They had only four praenomina, C. L. M. P., which means that four must have been the highest number of sons in any of the oldest families. This also means that almost all of the famous members of this branch can be linked to each other on a family tree. <page break 245/246> However, one misconception here does need to be dealt with, which seems to have spread widely and almost rooted itself deeply, and even damaged the otherwise foundational research done by Groebe on the genealogy of the Crasssi (in Drumann G. R.² IV 60ff. 602ff.). This misconception is that the overwhelming majority of the Crassi had a second cognomen Dives. This cognomen did indeed belong to the man who was responsible for the reputation of the Crassi, P. Crassus nr. 69, <10> whose wealth lead him to be elected Pontifex Maximus in the year 542 = 212, as the third plebeian, and at a remarkably young age. The cognomen was also given to his direct descendants, and his adoptive grandson in particular, P. Crassus Mucianus nr. 72, who took on the same role. The legendary wealth of the triumvir M. Crassus nr. 68 (comparisons with Croesus eg. Tertull. apol. 11. Lactant. inst. div. VI 13, 11) lead to the development of the false idea that he, and then also his ancestors, had also belonged to the house of the Divites, and this false idea later cemented itself. In actual fact, for the triumvir known for being the wealthiest Roman (cf. Drumann loc. cit. 123), the cognomen Dives is never attested, and Plutarch’s silence on the matter in his Life of Crassus is evidence against it. The lines from Varros sat. Menipp. (36-38 Büch. from Non. 379): Non fit thensauris, non auro pectu’ solutum; non demunt animis curas ac religiones Persarum montes, non atra diviti’ Crassi can, at any rate, be taken as referencing the wealth of P. Crassi illius veteris, as the orator L. Crassus had previously called him, in Cic. de or. III 134 in the year 663 = 91 (cf. Dec. Brutus in Cic. fam. XI 10, 5: Non si Varornis thensauros haberem). A later reference to this in an educated writer of satires, Pers. 2, 36: spem macram supplice voto nunc Licini in campos (cf. the article Licinus) nunc Crassi mittit in aedis (cf. Sen. ep. 119, 9: quem voles mihi ex his, qui cum Crasso Licinioque numerantur, in medium licet protrahas) is explained by the scholiast: Licinius Crassus inter Romanos locupletissimus fuit, ideo dives cognominatus. huius ergo divitias optat puero; however, this explanation doesn’t necessarily have to be referring to a different Crassus than the Pontifex Maximus, who is the only Crassus it actually properly fits with. <50> Plin. n. h. XXXIII 133 says: Postea Divites cognominati, dummodo notum sit eum qui primum hoc cognomen acceperit decoxisse creditoribus suis. ex eadem gente M. Crassus negabat locupletem esse nisi qui reditu annuo legionem tueri posset …. Quiritium post Sullam ditissimus. Here, the reference to the first man who bore the praenomen Dives is a mistake, just as the relevant comment from Schol. Pers. in light of the views above. It is, however, striking that nobody ever referred to the triumvir to as eiusdem cognominis or the like, especially where they had such a convenient opportunity to do so. <60> It is well known that he built up his riches entirely himself, and, just like his peer from the same gens, L. Lucullus nr. 104 (cf. Varro Plin. n. h. XIV 96), he grew up in a financial situation which starkly contrasts with his later wealth (Plut. Crass. 1, 1). He inherited neither the riches themselves, nor the cognomen of ‘rich’. <page break 246/249> And even the one sole piece of evidence for him having that name, which Gelzer (see nr. 68) refers to, Cic. ad Att. II 13, 2, compares the name with Pompey the Great, which would therefore more readily imply that the cognomen was a new and personal thing, not that it was passed down by his ancestors. Modern scholars, however, have needlessly taken Cicero’s remark about the Crassi Divites and linked it to the triumvir’s direct ancestors, <10> and then used that inference to suggest a genealogical connection with the actual members of that particular branch. This has lead Groebe to produce a fundamentally different family tree to Drumann (cf. 612f. contrasted with 60f.). The tree presented here differs, because it rejects this theory about the cognomen Dives, and it has the advantage of being simpler and more complete. It contains six generations, from a century and a half preceding the Second Punic War up to Caesar’s Civil War. <20> The M. Crassus nr. 55a, who is only mentioned once in the year 575 = 179, probably a third brother of the consuls P. of 578 = 176 and C. of 586 = 168, is without a definite spot in the second generation. In the last generation, also lacking a definite spot, are P. Crassus Iunianus, although the praenomen P. is confirmed for his adoptive father (nr. 75), and Crassus Damasippus: <30> it is both possible and necessary to take into account the fact that the M. Crassus mentioned above, or perhaps a younger and otherwise unknown younger son of a different member of his generation, was at the head of a separate branch that was for the most part unnoteworthy. However, the historically significant members of the house were nevertheless relatively closely related to each other. For example, Cic. de or. III 10 refers to the father of the triumvir, P. Crassus nr. 61, as a propinquus of the orator L. Crassus; <40> in Drumann and Groebe, who count them both as Divites, it is impossible to draw out a relationship between them, but in the family tree presented here, they appear as descendants of the same great grandfather, and the marriage between P. Crassus, the grandson of one, and Cornelia, the great granddaughter of the other, appears as yet another example in which old family ties are reestablished. Cic. ibid. I 170 also refers to P. Crassus Mucianus nr. 72 as a propinquus of the orator, and there is, of course, no doubt to be had over his relationship to the Divites: <50> but even here, the genealogical connection between the two men, who belonged to two different generations, is still recognisable, and they were even related in yet other ways: Crassus Mucianus was born a Mucius Scaevola and was the proper father of the augur Scaevola, whose daughter Mucia was taken as wife by the orator L. Crassus. <60> The triumvir’s claim that no Crassus had lived longer than 60 years (Plut. Cic. 25, 3) must be based on a good knowledge of his ancestors' history. He inherited his father’s skill to an extraordinary degree, the violent end of one of his sons being a direct foreshadowing of his own. At the beginning of the empire, the Crassi were honoured most highly. Continuing into the time of Nero, it is said of the Histrii: illic clientelae et agri veterum Crassorum ac nominis favor manebat (Tac. hist. II 72), although it cannot be determined who exactly established these relationships. <page break 249/250>

[Münzer.]

When the principate was being established, the Licinii Crassi earnt great military glory after the consul of 724 (nr. 56)’s Balkan victory. <10> His son, the consul of 740 (nr. 57), however - presuming that the tricky genealogical difficulties here (see nr. 73) have been correctly resolved - seems to have ended the male line of the gens, which was only able to continue after there was an adoption from the house of the Calpurnii Pisones (Frugi). But these Licinii Crassi Frugi (who were doubtless already patricians, cf. Heiter De patr. gent. 46f.) still considered themselves descendents of the ancient Crassi (cf. eg. Dio LXVIII 3, 2), <20> and laid claim to the historical glory of the Pisones as well as (through marriage) the nobility of the Pompeii, Scribonii, Sulpicii, and other great gentes (Mommsen Ges. Schr. VIII 250; cf. the family trees presented here). However, the wealth and luxury of their ancestral role models would become their downfall. Augustus may well have been understandably suspicious of his colleague as consul, the grandson of the triumvir (se nr. 56), but as time went on, his descendants would raise their suspicions to higher and higher levels, <30> until the house of the Crassi Frugi began to represent the claims to the principate from both Pompey and Crasssus (cf. Dio LX 5, 9. Tac. hist. I 15 [in a speech from Galba]: et mihi egregium erat Gnaei Pompei et M. Crassi subolem in penates meos adsciscere …. principatum, de quo maiores nostri armis certabant etc.). A brief attempt to connect the noble gens with that of the emperors in marriage ended up speeding along their decline (see nr. 73 and nr. 74). <40> After the downfall of the Claudii, it finally seemed like the Crassi Frugi’s time had come. Calpurnius Piso Frugi Licinianus, the son of the consul of 27 AD, was adopted and raised as a Caesar by Galba - who belonged to the same patrician house as his brother’s wife - but he was murdered a few days later (see vol. III p. 1399), his brother’s death was soon to follow (see nr. 77), <50> and the final member of this noble house which we know about, C. Calpurnius Crassus Frugi Licinianus, whose strong awareness of his nobility, which nobody else at the time came close to (Mommsen p. 253), made him an indisputable contender against the newest emperor, was exiled to a far away island, and he found his inglorious end at the sword of one of the emperor’s lackeys (see vol. III p. 1370. Weber Unters. z. Gesch. Hadr. 45f.); even the gravestones and urns of the Crassi Frugi, in their grave at the Porta Salaria, were victims of destruction (see below nr. 73). <60>

[Groag.]

Family Tree of the Licinii Claudii

Note: This version is hyperlinked to the articles, but underneath it is a screenshot from the RE for those on mobile devices or who wish to see the whole family tree at once. I'm aware the HTML version is rather cumbersome.