This article re-examines the complex judicial proceedings involving Marcus Servilius, as recounted by Marcus Caelius Rufus in Cic. fam. 8.8.2-3, with particular atten-tion to the quo ea pecunia perveneritprocedure, initially denied by the praetor Laterensis to Pausanias but subsequently granted to Appius the Younger after Pilius had submitted a postulatio de repetundis. The study seeks to offer an interpretation of the letter capable of resolving the apparent inconsistency in §3, where the expression postulante rursus Appioseems to refer to a second postulatioby Appius the Younger concerning the quo ea pecunia perveneritprocedure, whereas his subsequent withdrawal from the divinatioin favour of Pilius appears to presuppose that Appius himself had submitted a postulatio de repetundisafter that of Pilius.
Sulla causa Serviliana
PAOLA ZILIOTTO
2026-01-01
Abstract
This article re-examines the complex judicial proceedings involving Marcus Servilius, as recounted by Marcus Caelius Rufus in Cic. fam. 8.8.2-3, with particular atten-tion to the quo ea pecunia perveneritprocedure, initially denied by the praetor Laterensis to Pausanias but subsequently granted to Appius the Younger after Pilius had submitted a postulatio de repetundis. The study seeks to offer an interpretation of the letter capable of resolving the apparent inconsistency in §3, where the expression postulante rursus Appioseems to refer to a second postulatioby Appius the Younger concerning the quo ea pecunia perveneritprocedure, whereas his subsequent withdrawal from the divinatioin favour of Pilius appears to presuppose that Appius himself had submitted a postulatio de repetundisafter that of Pilius.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
