Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:34:20.271Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Tribunate in the Late Republic - Lukas Thommen: Das Volkstribunat der späten römischen Republik. (Historia Einzelschriften, 59.) Pp. 287. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner1989. Paper, DM 66.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2009

P. S. Derow
P. S. Derow
Affiliation:
Wadham College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reviews
Information
The Classical Review , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , October 1990 , pp. 379 - 380
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The omission from the bibliography of, e.g. Brunt, Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic (his larger masterpiece, The Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays [1988], appeared only after Th.'s book was finished), Hellegouarc'h, Le Vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la République, and Syme, The Roman Revolution (the last is, however, cited at p. 11 n. 24) may be thought surprising, or indicative. A worrying sort of note is struck on p. 129 (with n. 9), where a view attributed to Nicolet, Syme (a cross reference to Roman Papers would have been helpful here, as elsewhere), and Lily Ross Taylor is not one which they express in the places cited (not, I think, misprinted; something similar has happened to Lily Ross Taylor at p. 148 n. 5).

2 Th.'s views on this do seem, however, to be indicated clearly enough by his cavalier dismissal of recent work on the nature of Roman politics by, i.a., F. Millar in JRS 1984 and 1986 (12; note that the tribunician activities considered on pp. 36–8, emphatic as they are of the P in SPQR, fit more comfortably into an analysis like Millar's). Some, at least, of Brunt's strictures on Meier's Res Publica Amissa (JRS 1968, pp. 229–32, esp. 229) are every bit as applicable here.