P. Claudius Pulcher 304

vol. III p.2857-2858

304) P. Claudius Pulcher

The first name is given incorrectly by Suet. Tib. 3. Plin. n. h. XV 2. Flor. I 18, 29, namely Appius; Plin. loc. cit. also incorrectly names Claudius Caeci nepos. He was rather Ap. f. C. n. (Fasti Cap.) and the son of Ap. Caecus nr. 91 (Cic. div. I 29. Schol. Bob. p. 337. Suet. Diod. XXIV 1, 5). According to Schol. Bob., he first had the cognomen Pulcher. He is mentioned as aedile curulis on one of the oldest inscriptions, <20> a milestone on the Appian way (CIL X 6838 with p.1019 and Eph. epigr. VIII 676 p.165). He was consul in 505 = 249 (Fasti Cap. Chronogr. Idat. Chron. pasch. Cassiod. Plin. Censorin. de die nat. 17, 10) and was in charge of Sicily. If he was really the son of Caecus, then he must have already been an old man at the time, and his leadership of the war which was so disastrous for Rome cannot be explained by youthful recklessness. <30> He found it was his duty to drive forward the incredibly important siege of Lilybaeum; instead of this, he decided to attack the Carthaginian fleet lying in the harbour at Drepana with his fleet. The enemy general Atarbas immediately pushed his ships out of the harbour which the Romans had already sailed into; next, these Romans were also forced to seek the high sea again, but they fell into disarray, they were pressed against the coast, <40> and had to start fighting in an unfavourable position. This was made worse by the Carthaginians’ superiority in sailing manoeuvres, so the outcome was never uncertain for a moment. The consul recognised this, gave the signal to retreat, and escaped with 30 ships, while 93 fell into the hands of the enemy. This is the report from Polybios I 49, 3-51, 12, which we have to stick to; <50> the other descriptions of the battle are inexact (Diod. XXIV 1, 5. Zonar. VIII 15. Liv. ep. XIX. Flor. I 18, 29. Eutrop. II 26. 1. Oros. IV 10, 3. Frontin. strat. II 13, 9. Schol. Bob. p. 337) and also exaggerate about the losses (cf. Niebuhr R. G. III 714. Neuling De belli Punici primi scriptorum fontibus [Göttingen 1875] 49f. Meltzer Gesch. d. Karthager II 581). It was justified and natural that in Rome, people blamed the general for this terrible disaster, which destroyed what they had won after a long effort in one fell swoop. <60> Diodor. XXIV 3 gives a description of his arrogance and his harshness against his subordinates. However, the widespread Roman account attributed the blame for his misfortune less to his character and more to his lack of piety: when the sacred chickens didn’t want to eat before the battle, Claudius had them thrown into the sea with the words ut biberent quando esse nollent; <page break 2857/2858> his punishment came right after his act of sacrilege (Cic. nat. deor. II 7; div. I 29. II 20. 71. Liv. ep. XIX. XXII 42, 9. Flor. I 18, 29. Eutrop. II 26, 1. Val. Max. I 4, 3. VIII 1 abs. 4. Suet. Tib. 2, cf. Dio frg. 43, 32). Ihne (R. G.² II 90) thinks that this anecdote is perhaps a later invention; however, seeing this as Claudius’ main problem matches up with the spirit of that time, and boldly ignoring sacred customs following his father’s example matches up with the spirit of the consul. <10> He soon gave another example of this, when he was called back to Rome and was given the duty of appointing a dictator, and selected one of his subordinates, M. Claudius Glicia, who was dismissed immediately (Liv. ep. XIX Suet. Tib. 2 cf. nr. 166). Even this is only another step in the same direction as Appius Caecus, and it shows Claudius to be a daring and radical innovator. <20> He himself was charged for treason. Polybios (I 52, 2f.) only says: μεγάλαις ζημίαις καὶ κινδύνοις κριθεὶς περιέπεσεν; others say that the first charge made by two tribunes was unsuccessful because a storm interrupted the popular assembly (Val. Max. VIII 1 abs. 4. Schol. Bob. p.337), but that a new charge was brought, and Claudius was sentenced to a fine (Cic. nat. deor. II 7; div. II 71. Schol. Bob. with an account of the punishment). <30> An anecdote placed in the year 508 = 246 (cf. nr. 382) has him as dead; because of this, more modern scholars have suggested that ----------------. He is still judged differently in modern works, like many other historical figures who decided to take a big gamble with a bold throw of the dice, and lost.

([Münzer.])

This article is referenced by: Ap. Claudius Caecus (91), C. Claudius Centho (104), M. Claudius Glicia (166), Ap. Claudius Pulcher (293), Claudia (382)

This person is on the following family trees: The patrician branch of the Claudii