Quaestor

Abstract: The greatest legal monuments to Late Antiquity are the Code of Theodosius II, published in 438, and the Code, Digest and Institutes of Justinian, produced between 529 and 534. The men on whose shoulders the main responsibility for their compilation rested were two imperial quaestors, each backed by teams of experts. Antiochus Chuzon, quaestor in 429, saw the Theodosian Code from its inception in the year of his quaestorship through a second stage in 435 to its completion in time for the marriage of Valentinian III and Theodosius' daughter Eudoxia in October 437 and publication in the following year. century later, under Justinian, Tribonian, perhaps the most famous and powerful of all quaestors, proved his organizational and legal ability during the production of the first edition of Justinian's Code in 529 and became the moving force behind the Digest of the works of the Roman jurists, the Institutes (an update of Gaius on the principles of law) and the second edition of the Code, all of which were crammed into the five years that followed.

Abstract: M Y PURPOSE in this paper' is to attempt to modify the idea of a typical Roman governor of the later Republic which the sources, with their emphasis on the military expansion of Rome's territory and the fate of her more corrupt provincial magistrates, tend to suggest to us. I refer to the familiar image of an essentially military official who was either campaigning or holding royal court in some settled location chosen to suit his personal taste and convenience. An investigation into the less sensational aspect of his travels may help to restore credit for the routine labours so often eclipsed by glamorous exploits of conquest and rebellion. The Roman governor was in fact responsible for a heavy load of administrative and judicial work which arose from his supervisory control of the native authorities and his responsibility for hearing the suits of resident, native-born Roman citizens. This responsibility, which can be traced in the content of his edictum perpetuum, involved much travel.2 Delegation of judicial work to staff members, the legati, the quaestor, the praefecti or the comites, was possible, but this resort is not known to have been regularly or extensively used in all provinces. Legati iuridici, with settled duties in the judicial sphere, were unknown at this period, while only the governor regularly held the imperium which was necessary for criminal jurisdiction.3 We shall see, moreover, that Cicero, whose provincial time-table in the year 51-50 B.C. is the best documented of the period, planned to cover all

Abstract: I. Cato's title and commission: the problem.II. Cic., fam. XIII, 48: C. Sextilius Rufus, quaestor in Cyprus, and his family.III. The arrangements for annexation and administration.IV. The precedent: P. Lentulus Marcellinus and Cyrene.In 58 B.C. M. Cato, then of tribunician standing, was sent to Cyprus to confiscate and realize the King's property. The mission, with its political context, has been frequently discussed—best by S. I. Oost, with his usual historical insight and critical acumen. The present article proposes to base itself on Oost's discussion and investigate some further matters that did not come within the scope of his enquiry.IWe must start with Cato's title, on which the truth has only quite recently been recognized. Amid dozens of references to the famous mission, we have only two that purport to give his title accurately. The author of de uiris illustribus tells us that Cato was sent to Cyprus as quaestor. Since he is notoriously inaccurate in such matters, to the confusion of much modern scholarship, this would not be worth a great deal by itself. But it is fully supported by Velleius, who in fact gives more details: Clodius passed a law that Cato, as quaestor with praetorian status, and with a quaestor to assist him, should be sent to Cyprus to strip Ptolemy of his kingdom.

Abstract: T HE criminal justice system of the Roman Republic lacked both a police force and a professional prosecutor. The Romans therefore depended on private individuals to police offenses against a wide variety of legal and semi-legal provisions, offenses ranging from the defacement of graves or the flight of slaves (e.g., Petron. 97) to the violation of municipal bylaws2 and serious crimes against the state. The last type of offense is the subject of this paper: in particular, crimes prosecuted before the standing criminal courts, or quaestiones perpetuae, in the late Republic, from the creation of the first such court by the Lex Calpurnia de repetundis in 149 to the effective end of Republican institutions when civil war broke out at the beginning of 49 B.C. Various extralegal motives can explain why private Roman citizens took upon themselves the burden of reporting the wrongdoer to the authorities, and then preparing and presenting the case against him: a wrong suffered by the prosecutor or relative at the hands of the defendant, traditional inimicitia with the alleged culprit or his family, the desire for glory (especially if the prosecutor was a young man eager to make his name as a courtroom speaker), and patriotism.3 Personal involvement in a case did not disqualify a prosecutor; in fact, it could be viewed as an asset, for two reasons. First, his animus against the defendant provided some assurance that he would work hard at gathering and presenting his evidence, and that he would not commit praex'aricatio, or collusion with the defendant. Second, his personal knowledge of the case would help him gather evidence. Thus Q. Caecilius argued that he should be chosen to prosecute Verres because Verres had injured him while he was serving as Verres' quaestor in Sicily (Cic. Div. Caec. 55-60, 2 Verr. 1. 15). But these motives may have been insufficient or at least Roman legislators at various times in the late Republic may have thought them insufficient-because we know that several laws expressly provided for praemia, or rewards, to the successful prosecutor under certain circumstances. Actually, the phrase "successful prosecutor" needs some qualification, since it does not quite correspond to the Latin of various provisions. The