Ap. Claudius Pulcher 297

vol. III p.2849-2853

297) Ap. Claudius Pulcher

The oldest son of nr. 296. After the death of his father, he was left behind in dire straits with the duty of looking after his younger siblings (Varro r. r. III 16, 1f.). <60> He could hardly be taken as being the interrex of 676 = 78 (Sall. hist. I 51, 22. Kr. = I 77, 22 Maur., cf. nr. 296), as Mommsen (Münzwesen 561 on nr. 177) thinks, but instead his first appearance was in the year 679 = 75, when he brought Terentius Varro before the court on the basis of blackmail (Ps.-Ascon. div. in Caec. p. 109, 20 Or.). After that, he accompanied Lucullus, his sister’s husband, on his Asian military campaign, <page break 2849/2850> and in 682 = 72 in Antiochia, he gave Tigranes the Roman ultimatum: that he would have to choose between handing over Mithridates or war with Rome (Plut. Luc. 19, 2. 21, 1f. 7-9. 23, 2. 29, 9. Memnon 46, 2 [FHG III 550]). In the year 691 = 63, he belonged to the senate and took the minutes at the trial of the Catilinarians (Cic. Sulla 42). In 693 = 61, while his brother Publius was in court because of a religious crime, <10> Appius was in Greece, and was very busy with stealing paintings, statues, and other valuable works of art, because he was planning on putting himself forward for aedile and he wanted to deck out his aedile-games as magnificently as possible (Cic. de domo 111. Schol. Bob. p. 338 Or.). However, he didn’t take on this role, but instead, supported by L. Piso who had been consul in the previous year, he became praetor in the year 697 = 57 (Cic. de domo 40). He was in charge of the legal area of blackmail (Cic. ad Att. III 17, 1), and tried to help out his brother in various ways, (Cic. Sest. 16. Schol. Bob. on p. 295. 307 Or.) who he had already stood by against M. Bibulus, consul 695 = 59 (Cic. de domo 40). Cicero did later realise that Appius had generally acted tactfully, and didn’t directly go against him with hostility (de domo 87; ad fam. III 10, 8), <30> but he did complain a lot that he was the only one of all his colleagues who was against Cicero’s return from exile (Sest. 77f. 85. 87. 89. 126; Pis. 35. Ascon. on p. 10. Schol. Bob. p. 288 Or. Cic. ad Att. IV 1, 6. Dio XXXIX 6, 3. 7, 2), and also, once he was back from exile, he continued to support Publius (ad Att. IV 2, 3. 3, 3f. Dio loc. cit.). After he was praetor, Appius was put in charge of Sardinia, but in April 698 = 56 he took part in the triumvirs’ meeting in Luca (Cic. ad Q. fr. II 4, 6. 13, 3. Plut. Caes. 21, 2), <40> and became consul with L. Domitius Ahenobarbus in the year 700 = 54 (Tesserare CIL I 732. Bull. d. Inst. 1882, 8. Chronogr. Idat. Chron. pasch. Cassiod. Obseq. 64. Caes. b. G. V 1, 1. Ascon. Pis. p. 1; Scaur. p. 16. Schol. Bob. p. 253. Dio XXXIX 60, 2. XL 1, 1). At this point in time, he had made up with Cicero, mainly because of Cn. Pompey’s efforts, whose son had married his daughter (Cic. Scaur. 31f.; ad fam. I 9, 4. 19. III 10, 8. 10; ad Q. fr. II 10, 1; ad M. Brut. in Quintil. inst. or. IX 3, 41). <50> As well as being influenced by these relationships in his decisions and his behaviour, he was also significantly influenced by his greed, which was a consequence of his youth spent in poverty. After Cicero returned, he wanted to prevent him from taking any further steps against Antiochos of Commagene, because he was thinking about the generosity of this ruler (Cic. ad Q. fr. II 10, 2f.). Furthermore, he tried to delay the comitia to help out Gabinius (ibid. II 11, 3), the governor of Syria, who was being threatened by a legal charge, <60> but afterwards he attacked him himself very keenly, so that he could both act in accordance with popular opinion and also make his easily gained indispensability obvious to him (ibid. III 2, 3. Dio XXXIX 60, 3). The fact that he helped C. Pomptinus get his long-awaited triumph was probably also a result of selfishness (Cic. ad Att. IV 18, 4; ad fam. III 10, 3; ad Q. fr. III 4, 6). <page break 2850/2851> At the beginning of July, he and a commission of ten senators went to Interamna and Reate, so that they could settle the conflict right there, which had just arisen again between the two cities because of their differing opinions over the draining of the Lacus Velinus (Varro r. r. III 2, 3; cf. Cic. Scaur. 27; ad Att. IV 15, 5). Both consuls’ behaviour during the scandalous election campaigns of this year was absolutely outrageous. <10> One of the candidates for consul, C. Memmius, denounced himself to the senate in October, prompted by Pompey: he and another candidate, Domitius Calvinus, had promised the consuls in writing that if they ended up being elected with their support, then they would either pay them a large amount of money, or they would use a false omen from three augurs and two consuls to make sure that the curiat-law and the senate decree, <20> which would grant them the provinces they wanted, would not fall through. In light of this devastating charge, Appius kept his calm composure (Cic. ad Att. IV 17, 2; cf. 15, 7; ad Q. fr. III 1, 16), the court process over the improper conduct was prevented (Cic. ad Att. IV 17, 3f.), and the elections were delayed for a whole year (Cic. ad Q. fr. III 2, 3. 3, 2). Appius was full of intense desire to take over a province; <30> he also wanted to take over Cilicia and the command of the troops stationed there without a curiat-decree, even if he would have to forgo the right of the triumph (Cic. ad Att. IV 18, 4; ad fam. I 9, 25; ad Q. fr. III 2, 3), and he then made a vow in the event of his success (see below). He was in charge of Cilicia from the middle of 701 = 53 onwards, and made a claim for a triumph and title of imperator through a military campaign which we don’t know anything more about. <40> He was given this title by Cicero (ad fam. III 1 and 2 titles), the coins of Laodikeia and Apamea (Pinder Cistophoren 570f. CIL I 526) and the inscriptions of Athens and Eleusis (see below). Since Cicero was his successor in governing Cilicia, the two men began exchanging letters, of which thirteen of Cicero’s letters have been preserved and they make up the third book of the ep. ad familiares. With the exception of the eighth, which belongs before the seventh one, the letters are presented in chronological order; <50> the first was written even before Cicero was named proconsul of Cilicia, and the others span between him taking on the office at the beginning of 703 = 51 up until Cicero left Asia in autumn 704 = 50. With regards to Appius’ management of the province, they tell us little more than a few remarks from Cicero that Appius harshly oppressed Cilicia and didn’t only recklessly plunder it himself, but he also allowed his subordinates, eg. his son-in-law M. Brutus, <60> to carry out the most serious riots unpunished (Cic. ad fam. III 8, 5ff. XV 4, 2; ad Att. VI 1, 2. 6. 2, 8. Auct. de vir. ill. 82, 4). Various changes in the relationship between Cicero and Appius can be seen in these letters. First, they are full of assurances of friendly devotion and great kindness (letters 1-4), but the addressee seems in no way to have reciprocated these feelings, <page break 2851/2852> because the events in Rome before and after his brother’s murder must have had an impact on him. Consequently, the next letters 5-8 are half filled with accusations from the letter-writer, and half filled with responses to complaints from the recipient: Appius had avoided meeting his successor in every way, and finally, when their paths crossed all the same, he had hurried past him back home at night; <10> moreover, even after Cicero arrived at the province, he made orders. Cicero had prevented a monument for his predecessor from being set up, as well as an embassy from being sent to Rome, which would have acted as evidence of his good conduct. The scathing tone of these letters changed after Appius arrived at Rome at the end of 703 = 51, since both correspondents were necessary to the other. <20> The home-come man’s desire to receive a triumph (Cic. ad fam. III 9, 2) soon fell into the background behind other worries, since he was soon involved in a case of treason and then in a case of fraudulent office by P. Dolabella, who married Cicero’s daughter soon after. He gave up his hope for a triumph at once, and returned to the capital city to clear his name. Cicero’s opinion was then valuable to him, because unfavourable testimonies from the province could do a lot of damage to him, and he didn’t only write to Cicero, <30> but also had him work with Pompey, Brutus, and M. Caelius Rufus (Cael. ad fam. VIII 6, 1ff. Cic. ad fam. III 10; ad Att. VI 2, 10). In the first case, Pompey’s influence and Hortensius and Brutus’ defence brought about an acquittal (Cic. ad fam. III 11; Brut. 230. 324), and the second ended in just the same way, which was a consequence of Appius’ campaign for becoming censor (Cic. ad fam. III 12; cf. 11, 2); <40> moreover, in the middle of the year 704 = 50, Appius was elected censor with L. Piso (Cic. ad fam. III 10, 3f. 11, 5 and titles of 13, 2. Dio XL 63, 2. Oros. VI 15, 11). He wasn’t spotless and pure enough to use this office to successfully gain him a new reputation through his austerity. His dirty conduct with M. Caelius Rufus, since the censor and the aedile both wanted to sue each other for sexual offences, casts an alarming light on him (Cael. ad fam. VIII 12, 1. 14, 4; cf. above p. 1270), <50> and rules against the illegal acquisition of artwork sounded peculiar coming from a man who wasn’t entirely scrupulous in that respect either (Cael. ad fam. VIII 14, 4. Cic. ad Att. VI 9, 5). Other decrees of his concerned ownership of fields and debt (Cael. ibid.); he kicked the historian C. Sallustius out of the senate on account of immorality (Invect. in Sall. 16. Dio XL 63, 4), C. Ateius because of fabricating auspices (Cic. div. I 29), <60> and C. Curio was only saved from the same fate by Piso (Dio XL 63, 5). Nevertheless, Appius forcefully attacked Curio in the senate at least (Cael. ad fam. VIII 17, 1. Dio XL 64, 1) and showed that he was so utterly hostile to Caesar’s followers that his overeagerness benefitted him more than it hurt him. There can be no doubt about his conduct in the civil war that broke out soon after (Cic. ad Att. IX 1, 4; cf. VIII 1, 3). <page break 2852/2853> He allied with Pompey and held Greece as a province. Here, he asked the oracle of Delphi about the future and received an ambiguous answer, which has only been handed down to us in its Latin translation: Nihil ad te hoc, Romane, bellum; Euboeae coela obtinebis. Consequently, he returned to Euboea, where he died before the deciding battle in Pharsalus, <10> sometime around the beginning of 706 = 48 (Val. Max. I 8, 10. Oros. VI 15, 11. Lucan. V 68ff. 122ff.). In this story, an important facet of his character comes to light: his religiousness. The so-called small propylaea of the temple at Eleusis are a state monument of the same fact. According to the inscription on the epistyle (CIL I 619 = III 546), he dedicated the reconstruction of the old vestibule to the Eleusinian deities (cf. Athen. Mitt. II 190ff. and the article Eleusis) as a consul, and started them as imperator; <20> in the year 704 = 50 the construction took place (Cic. ad Att. VI 1, 26. 6, 2), and the Athenians showed their gratitude to the founder by setting up a statue (CIA III 566); but he didn’t live to see the propylaea be complete, instead two of his nephews completed the work as his executors. The Amphiaraos sanctuary at Oropos must have also delighted in Appius’ goodwill, because an honorific inscription found there has been potentially attributed to him (IGS I 428). <30> He was no less devoted to the beliefs of his people. He would perhaps have put himself forward to be pontifex (Mommsen Röm. Forsch. I 90, 38); he had already carried out his duty as augur very keenly since 691 = 63 (Varro r. r. III 2, 2. 7, 1. Cic. Brut. 267; div. I 29. 105. II 75; leg. II 32) and wrote a work about the rules of augury, the first book of which he dedicated to Cicero (Cic. ad fam. III 4, 1; cf. 9, 3. 11, 4; fragments in Fest. p. 197. 297. 298). <40> In addition, he held even worse superstitions and believed in necromancy (νεκρομαντεῖα Cic. Tusc. I 37; psychomantia div. I 132). He was also interested in agriculture, since he was introduced by Varro r. r. III as a main character in the dialogue; the conversation happened while he was consul, but Varro occasionally forgets this (eg. III 2, 2. 7, 1). The favourable judgement which Cicero (Brut. 267) passes, after his death, <50> on his general mental ability could have been influenced by his opinions on his son-in-law M. Brutus. His daughters nr. 388 and 389, his adopted son nr. 299. [from suppl. vol. I p.320: His wife was perhaps a Servilia (Cic. ad Att. XII 20, 2)].

([Münzer.])

This article is referenced by: C. Claudius Marcellus (214), Ap. Claudius Pulcher (296), Ap. Claudius Pulcher (299), Claudia (388), P. Clodius Pulcher (48), L. Domitius Ahenobarbus (27)