vol. III p.2681-2685
As well as the reports by writers, we also have his elogium as a source for his life story. A complete copy of it from Arretium is extant, <20> while only two small fragments of the original, which stood in the Forum of Augustus in Rome, have been found in recent years [from 1899’s perspective] (CIL I2 p.192 nr. IX. X). As C. f. Ap. n. (Elog. Fasti Cap. on the years 442. 447), Appius was the son of nr. 183. According to Frontin. aqu. I 5: Appio Claudio Crasso censore, cui postea Caeco fuit cognomen, he originally had the cognomen Crassus, and in Suet. Tib. 2 (cf. nr. 137), <30> in a story which Mommsen (Röm. Forsch. I 308f.) has attributed to Appius with a high degree of probability, Hirschfeld (Herm. VIII 476) is inclined to read Claudius Crassus instead of the extant Claudius Drusus. Only Pompon. Dig. I 2, 2, 36 says of Appius: hic Centemmanus appellatus est, probably because of his construction activity, since Archimedes was given the same name by Marcellus (Plut. Marc. 17. 1; cf. also nr. 376). On the most famous cognomen of Appius, Caecus, <40> the suggestion has been made by Mommsen (ibid. I 302) - which can be supported through reference to Hor. sat. I 2, 91 (caecior, short-sighted) and the name of the founder of Praeneste Caeculus (quod oculos exiguos haberet Cat. orig. II 22. cf. Serv. Aen. VII 678) - that it had been his cognomen from birth onwards, because it is put with his name in the Fasti right from the start, although even Mommsen himself acknowledges the weakness of this argument. <50> It is probable that Appius became blind in old age, since the beginning of his speech against the peace with Pyrrhos, which has been preserved by Plut. Pyrrh. 19; an seni sit ger. resp. 21. Appian. Samn. 10, 1. Ined. Vatic. (Herm. XXVII 120f.), and which was still around in Cicero’s time (see below), could well be historical: “up until now, he only wished that he wasn’t blind, but now he would like to be deaf as well”, and for the ancients, blindness was always an unchangeable fact of life (cf. eg. Cic. Caec. 54; har. resp. 38; Cael. 33; Phil. I 11; Tusc. V 112; Cato 16. 37). <60> They usually considered it to be a divine punishment for the criminal reorganisation of the cult of Hercules (Liv. IX 29, 9-11, cf. ep. XIII Val. Max. I 1, 17. Auct. de vir. ill. 34. 3. Serv. Aen. VIII 179. Lactant. div. inst. II 7, 15); since some authors recognised that it would be impossible for the state to have a blind person take up office (cf. Dig. III 1, 1, 5), <page break 2681> they tried to get rid of this problem by making small emendations. Liv. IX 29, 11 when he has him become blind post aliquot annos after being censor, Diod. XX 36, 6 when he says: τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀπολυθεὶς καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς συγκλήτου φθὀνον εύλαβηθείς, προσεποιήθη τυφλὸς εἶναι. According to the elogium, Appius held the following positions which we only know of from the elogium, in case they don’t come up in what we discuss below: he was censor, co(n)s(ul) bis, dict(ator), interrex III, pr(aetor) III, aed(ilis) cur(culis) II, q(uaestor), tr(ibunus) mil(itum) III. <10> He mainly owes his reputation to his time as censor, which started in the year 442 = 312 before his other higher positions. The best account of it is in Diodor. XX 36, 1-6; an excellent appraisal of his censorship is in Mommsen R. Forsch. I 301ff.; cf. Ihne R. G.2 I 409ff. Nitzsch R. G. I 103. Sieke Appius Claudius Caecus Censor, Marburg 1890 (without value is Lohse Die Häupter des patric. Claudiergeschlechts [Chemnitz 1891] 18ff. Amatucci Riv. filol. XXII 1893, 227ff.). <20> According to Diod. XX 36,1, his colleague C. Plautius Venox was completely faithful to him; he would have been entirely able to prevent his colleague’s measures using his objection, but he didn’t do that’ because of this, it’s unlikely that he stepped down from office because he was unhappy with what his colleague was doing, like Liv. IX 29, 7 claims when he contradicts himself IX 33, 4. The simple fact that Plautius resigned in the usual manner after eighteen months, <30> while Appius remained in office to complete his grand building projects (Liv. IX 33, 4ff. Frontin. de aqu. I 5. Auct. de vir. ill. 34, 9) is completely in line with the law, and has only been arbitrarily exaggerated and considered to be illegal by the later historians (Mommsen St.-R. II 351, 2). Completely justified, Diod. XX 36, 2 says the following about the great building works by this censor: αὑτοῦ δὲ μνημεῖον ἀθάνατον κατέλιπεν, εἰς κοινὴν εὐχρηστίαν φιλοτιμηθείς, <40> since up until the modern day, the Aqua Appia, and even more so the amazing Via Appia, bear the name of their founder (Elog. Cic. Cael. 34. Liv. IX 29, 6. Diod. XX 36, 2. Frontin. de aqu. I 5. Auct. de vir. ill. 34, 7f. Eutrop. II 9, 3. Fest. ep. 24. Pomp. Dig. I 2, 2, 36. Hieron. and Cassiod. chron. on the year 442, cf. vol. II p.215 238ff.; about the statue of Appius in the Forum Apii named after him, cf. Suet. Tib. 2, see above, and nr. 137). <50> In a religious sphere, he was innovative in how he transferred the cult of Hercules at the Ara Maxima from the family of the Potitii to the slaves of the state, which - allegedly - the heavens punished him and the undutiful gens for (apart from the sources cited above, cf. Fest. p.237. Macrob. sat. III 6, 13. R. Peter in Roscher’s Lex. d. Mythol. I 2924ff.). The ban on the tibicines holding their feast in the Temple of Jupiter, which lead to the whole collegium famously leaving Rome, <60> was either instated by him or was at the very least instated during his time as censor (Liv. IX 30, 5. Auct. de vir. ill. 34. 1 etc.; cf. Zeller Festschr. zur Begrüssung d. Philologenvers. zu Heidelb. [Leipz. 1865] 33ff.). Appius’ political reforms were of the greatest importance. He was the first to make the people who didn’t own property, among which there was a huge number of freedmen, full citizens by taking them into the tribes, <page break 2682/2683> and in doing so he changed the make-up and structure of the citizen body completely; this radical and impactful change to the constitution also meant that the reactionary measures of his successor Q. Fabius Maximus, censor 450 = 304, were not easy to get rid of (Liv. IX 46, 11. Diod. XX 36, 4. Plut. Popl. 7, 7; cf. Mommsen St.-R. II 402f.). <10> The lectio senatus went hand in hand with it, the first overhaul of the list of senators which we know of; it was the acceptance of sons of freedmen into the senate which particularly violated ancient custom (Liv. IX 29, 7. 46, 10. Diod. XX 36, 3. Suet. Claud. 24. Auct. de vir. ill. 34, 1; cf. Mommsen St.-R. II 418, 3. III 422, 3), and this lead to Cn. Flavius, the scribe of Appius, the son of a freedman, becoming aedile curulis in the year 451 = 304, <20> who made public the calendar and actions on his instructions and with his support (Diod. XX 36, 6. Plin. n. h. XXXIII 17. Dig. I 2, 2, 36, etc., cf. Cn. Flavius). Diodor. XX 36, 1 continues to say that Appius overrided the restriction on the censor by the senate in financial matters, and characterised all he did with the following rather justified words: πολλὰ τῶν πατρῴων νομίμων ἐκίνησε· τῷ δήμῳ γὰρ τὸ κεχαρισμένον ποιῶν οὐδένα λὀγον ἐποιεῖτο τῆς συγκλἠτου. <30> As a demagogue innovator who didn’t look back, Appius acted in all areas within his sphere of influence as censor, and mostly his plans went almost directly against the interests of the patricians. After he became censor, he put himself forward for consul; when a few annalists (in Liv. IX 42, 3) reckon that he would have even done it while he was still censor, this can be explained by the fact that, like Livy, they had ignored his dictator year in 445 = 309, <40> meaning that according to their calculations, his service as censor wouldn’t have been finished yet by the time he began his campaign for consulship. As consul, Appius remained in Rome in the year 447 = 307, and dedicate himself to internal affairs (Fasti Cap. Elog. Liv. IX 42, 2-4, cf. X 15, 12. 22, 7. Cassiod. Diod. XX 45, 1. Chronogr. Idat. Chron. Pasch.; this consulship is ignored by Piso, Liv. IX 44, 3). <50> Appius’ opposition against the lex ogulnia about allowing plebs to become priests was reported for the year 454 = 300 (Liv. X 7, 1), for the sole purpose of attributing the role of an intolerant aristocrat to one of the Claudii in the famous Manii. In the year 455 = 299, he acted as the first interrex (Liv. X 11, 10). During a different interregnum, whose date is undetermined but which was recorded among his three interregna in his elogium, he supposedly lead the elections and tried to prevent any plebs being candidates for consul. <60> Connected with this story told in Cic. Brut. 55, and just as made-up, is the story given in Livy X 15, 7-12 which says that Appius intended to get two patricians elected during his second campaign for consulship (cf. Mommsen Röm. Forsch. I 311f. Ihne R. G.2 I 441, 2), where the note in § 12 could have been a comment from a later annalist directed against the Fabian version (cf. further Auct. de vir. ill. 34. 4: ne consulatus cum plebeis communicaretur acerrime restitit). <page break 2683/2684> Just like in his first, Appius also had L. Volumnius as a colleague in his second consulship in 458 = 296 (Fasti Cap. Elog. Cic. Cato 16. Liv. Cassiod. Chronogr. Idat. Chron. Pasch.), and this time, both of them had the opportunity to prove themselves in war. The elogium says the following about Appius’ deeds: complura oppida de Samnitibus cepit, Sabinorum et Tuscorum exercitum fudit; <10> the Auct. de vir. ill. 34, 6: Sabinos, Samnites, Etruscos bello domuit. Livy X 17, 11f. refers to four different accounts about the events of this year at war; the third one (both consuls leading the war together in Samnium) has its basis in the elogium, and despite its low reliability the fourth one is preferred by Livy himself in his detailed description. <20> In it, the relationship between Appius and his army and his colleagues (on this, also cf. Dio frg. 33, 27) is painted with very similar colours as in the story of his ancestor (nr. 123), and even though in this version, the defeats which Appius suffered in battle against the Etruscans would have been offset by Volmnius turning up and combining the two consuls’ armies to win a victory (Liv. X 18, 3-19, 22), it is still certain that neither of the generals had a triumph, <30> and that the danger for Rome remained present. <30> In the next year 459 = 295 as praetor, probably for the second time, Appius remained in Etruria until the consul Q. Fabius Rullianus turned up (Liv. X 22, 7-9. 24, 18. 25, 4-9). Livy, who had already described him as an enemy of this great general, only has him demand both of the consuls to be sent away to the northern battlefront out of ill-will, so to speak (X 25, 13-16. 26, 6; cf. Auct. de vir. ill. 34, 5: ne Fabius solus ad bellum mitteretur, contradixit), <40> but if Appius really made this demand, then instead it would show that he had a complete understanding of the terrible danger his home country was in. After the deciding battle at Sentinum, he was given the task of wiping out the Samnite troops from Campania, which he happily carried out together with his old companion Volumnius (Liv. X 31, 3-8, not without a number of exaggerations). <50> Historically, the story should go that Appius dedicated the Temple of Bollona during the war against the Etruscans in his second consulship, and he then set it up at the Circus Flaminius (Elog. Liv. X 19, 17. Ovid. fast. VI 201; on the source in Plin. n. h. XXXV 12 usually taken to refer to him, cf. nr. 296). His dictatorship, which is only known about from the elogium, probably fell between the years 462 = 292 and 469 = 285 (cf. Mommsen’s note on this). <60> Later, he only emerged from the retirement which his age and blindness condemned him to once, and if his previous deeds had secured him first place amongst the older Roman statesmen, then what he did when he emerged earnt him a place in world history. After the battle at Herakleia in 474 = 280, when Pyrrhos offered Rome peace and the senate were already close to being won over by what his embassy Kineas was suggesting, <page break 2684/2685> in a firey speech, the blind old man decided to continue the war and with it take a step forward on the way to world domination. This speech was still read in the time of both Cicero (Brut. 61; Cato 16) and Seneca (ep. XIX 5, 13); it is very possible that Plut. Pyrrh. 19 gives the general ideas and particularly the opening words (cf. above) reasonably faithfully, and certainly Ennius’ poetic version only deviates from the original a little bit, <10> which Cic. Cato 16 has preserved the famous lines of: quo vobis mentes, rectae quae stare solebant antehac, dementes sese flexere viai (else cf. Elog. Cic. Brut. 55; Cael. 34; Phil. I 11. Liv. ep. XIII. Iustin. XVIII 2, 10. Ovid. fast. VI 203. Val. Max. VIII 13, 5: Suet. Tib. 2. Flor. I 13, 20. Ampel. 19, 2. Auct. de vir. ill. 34, 10. Dig. I 2, 2, 36. Zonar. VIII 4). According to Frontin. strat. IV 1, 18, Appius was also the one to propose that the soldiers captured and released by Pyrrhos should be humiliated and punished (cf. Val. Max. II 7, 15. Eutrop. II 13, 2. Zonar. VIII 4). Cicero praises Appius for remaining a fresh and sprightly model of strict discipline and morals into his old age; four sons and five daughters supposedly mourned him (Cato 16. 37 [hence Val. Max. VIII 13, 5]; cf. Cael. 33f.; Tusc. V 112; sons and step-sons mentioned in Plut. Pyrrh. 18). <30> In tradition, the four sons turn up as Ap. Claudius Rufus nr. 317 [corrected from nr. 316] and the founders of the Claudii Pulchri, Centhones, and Nerones, though their relationship is not completely certain; of his daughters, only nr. 382 is known. In terms of other claims to fame which Appius has, the only one that remains is that he is the first figure named in the history of Roman literature. Not only was his speech against peace with Pyrrhos the first one handed down to future generations in Rome in writing (outside of the sources mentioned above, cf. Tac. dial. 18. Quintil. inst. or. II 16, 7), <40> but also a collection of speeches in Saturnian metre are often cited, which were praised by Panaitios and were connected to similar literary works from the school of Pythagoras (Cic. Tusc. IV 4). Its most famous fragment: fabrum esse suae quemque fortunae in Ps.-Sallust. ad Caes. de rep. I 1, 2; perhaps the following fragment also belongs here: negotium populo Romano melius quam otium committi (Val. Max. VII 2, 1). <50> On Greek comedy, especially Philemon, as a source of quotes from Ap. Claudius, cf. F. Marx Ztschr. f. österr. Gymn. 1897, 217ff. 394. Pomp. Dig. I 2, 2, 36 also says that Appius was the Roman first legal author: hunc etiam actiones scripsisse traditum est, primum de usurpationibus, qui liber non exstat. Recently [as of 1899], someone from Bremen Iurisprud. Antehadrianae quae supersunt (Leipz. 1896) I 3ff. has spoken in favour of the existence and genuine nature of this work which has usually been doubted. <60> Important changes to the writing system have also been attributed to Appius by Pomp. ibid. and Mart. Capella III 261. On all this, cf. Teuffel-Schwabe5 I 131 § 90.
[Münzer.]
This person is on the following family trees: The patrician branch of the Claudii
Previous article: Claudius Attalus (65)
Next article: Ap. Claudius Centho (103)