CICERO, PRO MURENA 47 AND 85. (16th April 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Dyck, Andrew R.
• Is Part Of: Classical quarterly. Volume 64:Number 1(2014:May)
• Page Start: 417
• Page End: 418
• Publication Date: 2014-04-16
• Subjects: Classical philology -- Periodicals; Classical literature -- Periodicals; 880
• DOI: 10.1017/S0009838813000864
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0009-8388

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="text-abstract"> <title> <x content-type="archive" xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <p>Cicero is narrating various proposals advanced by Servius Sulpicius Rufus in an attempt to save his failing consular campaign of 63. In addition to the <italic>lex Tullia de ambitu</italic> discussed in the preceding section, he mentions this proposal that was blocked in the senate. The text printed is that of Clark, who compares [Sall.] 2.8.1, citing a law promulgated by C. Gracchus in his tribunate: <italic>ut ex confusis quinque classibus sorte centuriae vocarentur</italic>. On this basis Clark suspected that the transmitted <italic>praerogationum</italic> conceals a reference to the <italic>praerogativa</italic> (<italic>centuria</italic>), the first to vote in the <italic>comitia centuriata</italic>, traditionally chosen by lot from the centuries of the first class and the twelve classes of <italic>equites</italic>, and thus highly influential. Certainly this is more plausible than Mommsen's <italic>perrogationem</italic> ('the successive asking for opinions': <italic>OLD</italic> s.v. <italic>perrogatio</italic>), which is not attested in any classical author.</p> </abstract>