Abstract

It is argued that (1) the alleged violation of the auspices by both the Consuls of 249 B. C. did in fact occur and (2) resulted in separate prosecutions directed at each of them; (3) the name ‘Pullius’, reported for one of the plebeian Tribunes that prosecuted P. Claudius Pulcher, is probably authentic; (4) the cognomen of L. Iunius Pullus is not spun out the violation of the auspices attributed to him and his colleague; and (5) the cognomen ‘Pulcher’, first born by the Consul of 249, may actually derive from his drowning of the Chickens.