vol. III p.2697-2698
The grandson of the decemvir Appius nr. 123 (Liv. IV 48, 5. VI 40, 1), <10> and the son of an otherwise unknown Publius (Fasti Cap. on the year 351). He has the cognomen Crassus in Livy (V 1, 2. VI 40, 1, etc.), Chronogr. Idat. Chron. pasch. on the year 405; [Cr]assus Inregillensis is offered by the Fasti Cap. on the year 392 (cf. 351. 405; on this cognomen p.2663). Even in the year 338 = 416, this Appius is supposed to have been an enemy of the plebs, as is traditional (Liv. IV 48, 5ff., cf. V 2, 14). <20> He stayed back in Rome in 351 = 403 as a military tribune with consular power (Fasti Cap. Liv. V 1, 2. Diod. XIV 35, 1), and calmed down the plebs’ unhappiness which had been brought about by the continuation of the war with the Veii during the winter (Liv. V 2, 13. 3, 1. 7, 1). In the year 358 = 396, he supposedly made the suggestion of using the plunder from the Veii as payment for those who had fought in the war (Liv. V 20, 5ff.). For about thirty years starting from this point in time, we hear nothing about him, <30> and if all the following stories do refer to him, as tradition claims, then his political acts would have stretched over around seven decades. Because of this, it may be possible that a younger Appius has been mixed with an older one here in the Fasti and in other stories to create one single figure (differentiated as cousins by Drumann G. R. II 169f.). [from suppl. vol. III: In Fest. 372, Ap. Claudius is named as the one who brought the charges in the famous scene of the ransom of the Gauls, whom Brennus famously responded to with Vae victis; in the rest of tradition, one of the consular tribunes Q. Sulpicius (see there) has this role.] <40> Understandably, we see Appius as a supporter of so-called Claudian family politics in the year 386 = 368 as one of the opponents of the proposed Licinian-Sextian laws (Liv. VI 40, 1-42, 1. Auc. de vir. ill. 20, 2). In the year 392 = 362, after the plebeian consul L. Genucius had fallen in battle against the Hernici, he took over the dictatorship rei gerundae causa (Fasti Cap. Liv. VII 6, 12) as one of the heads of the patricians, and supposedly won a victory over the enemy (Liv. VII 7, 3-8, 7). The biased tone of this portrayal, and the sense some of its details have of being constructed from some kind of template, make this story rather suspicious (cf. Clason R. G. I 279f., who I 344 even casts doubt on his dictatorship for this reason), but perhaps we can still be certain of the defeat and the victory over the Hernici that followed it (cf. Burger Sechzig Jahre aus d. ält. Gesch. Roms [Amsterdam 1891] 213). However, since the legate C. Sulpicius had already fixed the mistake before Appius’ campaign (Liv. VII 7, 1-3), <60> and since Appius only achieved the victory through large losses on his own side (ibid. 8, 7: quarta pars militum amissa), it is possible to fill in a triumph of Appius in the Acta Triumphorum, because before a triumph of 393 = 361 the word Nov. referring to the date of a different triumph has been retained there (CIL I2 p.51). Appius became consul in the year 405 = 349, but he died shortly after taking on office (Fasti Cap. Chronogr. Idat. Chron. pasch. Claud. Quadrig. in Gell. IX 11, 3. Cic. Cato 41. Liv. VII 24, 11. 25, 10. Cassiod.). <page break 2697/2698>
([Münzer.])
This article is referenced by: C. Claudius Inregillensis (183)
This person is on the following family trees: The patrician branch of the Claudii
Previous article: Ap. Claudius Crassus (121)
Next article: Ap. Claudius Crassus Inregillensis Sabinus (123)