The Quaestorship in the Roman Republic

Francisco Pina Polo, Alejandro Díaz Fernández

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2019
• eBook ISBN: 9783110663747
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Ancient History
• Index: History

The lack of evidence has proved to be the greatest obstacle involved in reconstructing the quaestorship and has probably discouraged scholars from undertaking a large-scale study of the office. As a consequence, a comprehensive study of the quaestorship has long been a desideratum: this book aims to fill this gap in the scholarship.
The book contains a study of the quaestorship throughout the Roman Republic, both in Italy (particularly at Rome) and in the overseas provinces. It includes a history of the office, an analysis of its role within the cursus honorum and its larger importance for the Roman constitution as well as the prosopography of all quaestors known during the Republican period based on the literary, epigraphic and numismatic evidence.
The quaestorship was always an office for beginners who aspired to follow a political career and hence served as institutional entrance to the senate. Despite their youth, quaestors were endowed with functions of great significance at Rome and abroad, such as the control and supervision of Rome's finances. As the book shows, the quaestorship was a prominent and essential part of the Roman administration.

Chapter 1: The origin of the quaestorship

In 1984 Adalberto Giovannini argued that the ideas found in present-day scholarship often reproduce the assumptions with which nineteenth-century scholarship has bequeathed us. At times, this adoption of a previous generation’s preconceptions has been carried out unwittingly and in such cases it becomes incredibly difficult to free oneself from those ideas. Giovannini went on to suggest that if we hope to transcend the theories that have been debated for well over a century, we must critically re-examine the fundamental assumptions on which they rest. He reached these conclusions in an article on the origins of the Republican offices, a subject over which much ink had already been spilled, but which he claimed deserved a good deal more.¹ More than thirty years have elapsed since Giovannini wrote those words and yet his assertions about our relationship to past scholarship remain valid. As we shall argue throughout this book, the origin of the quaestorship is one such topic that requires a fresh and critical look. For decades scholars have analysed the quaestorship and proposed various solutions for solving the riddle of the office’s origins. While these scholars have necessarily relied on the same set of primary sources, they have been greatly influenced by scholarship from the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. To a certain extent, anyone who seeks to understand and explain the origins of this office must enter into dialogue with Theodor Mommsen, whose presence is still felt in discussions of the Roman Republican constitution.

The puzzle of the ancient sources

Only a few late sources expressly mention the origin of the quaestorship, all of which are controversial and contradictory. Furthermore, it is striking that neither Livy nor Dionysus of Halicarnasus, our two main sources for the early Republic, specifically address the issues surrounding the creation of the quaestorship, although they speak of quaestors as a matter of fact from the very beginning of the Republic. As is always the case when dealing with archaic Rome, the difficulty lies not only in the lack of unanimity between the sources but above all in the dubious credibility of those very sources.

Let us begin with Varro and Festus. Both antiquarians derive quaestor from quaerere, with the meaning of ‘search’, ‘inquire’ or ‘investigate’.² Accordingly, Varro writes, ‘the name quaestors derives from quaerere, and they were those who should enquire into public monies and crimes, which the triumviri capitales now investigate; from these, afterwards, those who pronounce judgement on matters of investigation were called quaesitores.’³ Whereas Varro includes the two functions —financial and judicial— that are usually attributed to quaestors, Festus, whose text is only partially preserved, only refers specifically to quaestors with judicial duties, the so-called quaestores parricidii.⁴

Some ancient authors dated the institution of the quaestorship to the regal period. The Digest, for example, preserves a passage from Ulpian’s book on the quaestorship: ‘the origin of quaestors is very old, almost previous to any other magistracy. Junius Gracchanus, in his seventh book De potestatibus, relates that Romulus himself and Numa Pompilius had two quaestors, who were appointed not by themselves but by the votes of the people. But even if there are doubts about whether there was any quaestor during the reigns of Romulus and Numa, it is certain that quaestors existed during the reign of Tullus Hostilius. And, certainly, the opinion of ancient writers is that Tullus Hostilius was the first to introduce quaestors in the government of the community.’⁵

Given that Junius Gracchanus must have been active in the second half of the second century BC, this passage indirectly offers the oldest preserved information about the origin of the quaestorship.⁶ According to Junius Gracchanus (provided that Ulpian has accurately recorded his words), the quaestorship had existed in Rome since the very beginning of the civitas, if we accept that Romulus and Numa already had quaestors at their service. At any rate, he takes it is a fact (certum est) that the quaestorship had existed at least since the reign of Tullus Hostilius, which he claims was the position generally held by ancient writers. As a logical consequence, the quaestorship was among the most ancient magistracy in Rome (paene ante omnes magistratus). There were two quaestors when the office was created; furthermore, those that held the post were not directly appointed by the kings but rather elected by the people.⁷

A digression found in Tacitus’ Annals, which provides one of the longest texts on the history of the quaestorship, also supports the thesis that the roots of the quaestorship lay in the Monarchy: ‘With our ancestors, magistracy had been the reward of virtue, and all citizens who had confidence in their qualities could legitimately aspire to hold an office; and there was not even a distinction of age that prevented access to the consulate or to the dictatorship in early youth. The quaestorship was instituted while the kings still reigned, as shown by the curiate law that Lucius Brutus renewed. And the power of selection remained in the hands of the consuls until this office, like all others, passed into the bestowal of the people. The first election, precisely sixty-three years after the expulsion of the Tarquins, was that of Valerius Potitus and Aemilius Mamercus, in order to collaborate in military affairs. Then, as public business increased, two others were added to take care of their duties at Rome.’⁸

Here Tacitus clearly places the origin of the quaestorship in the time of the kings, while also referring to a supposed curiate law that Lucius Brutus renewed. He does not, however, provide a specific date for the creation of the office. Contrary to the assertion of Junius Gracchanus (as reported in Ulpian), Tacitus assumes that the quaestors were initially chosen (potestas deligendi) by the consuls and, although he does not say so explicitly, presumably by the kings during the Monarchy; it was not until sixty-three years after the expulsion of the Tarquins, in 447 – 446, that quaestors began to be elected by the people. Additionally, Tacitus indicates that it was the quaestors’ job to assist the consuls in military affairs. However, the exact thrust of Tacitus’ sentence is not completely clear. It could be interpreted simply as meaning that Valerius Potitus and Aemilius Mamercus were the first quaestors who were elected by the people rather than selected by the consuls. But the passage could more specifically mean that only from 447 – 446 onwards quaestors acquired responsibilities in the field, and that this change explained why they were elected by the people and no longer selected by the consuls.⁹ At any rate, Tacitus makes it clear that those who held the quaestorship were meant to collaborate closely with the consuls (and presumably earlier with the kings) and that their responsibilities in the field as the consuls’ assistants predated their financial duties at Rome.

In contrast to Ulpian and Tacitus, Greek authors like Plutarch and Cassius Dio (preserved by Zonaras) represent a different tradition about the origins of the office: the quaestorship was created in the Republican age. The sources upon which Plutarch and Cassius Dio draw seem to have come from a common tradition, though each author tells a slightly different story with varied emphasis: whereas Plutarch focuses on the role played by Publicola in the foundation of the new magistracy, Cassius Dio is more interested in its institutional development.¹⁰

Here is what Plutarch has to say about the origin of the quaestorship in his biography of Publicola: ‘He [Valerius Publicola] was also praised for his law concerning the quaestorship (τὸν ταμιευτικὸν νόμον )… Therefore, he made the temple of Saturn a treasury, as it is even today, and gave the people the power to appoint two men as quaestors (ταμίαι). And the first to be thus appointed were Publius Veturius and Marcus Minucius…’ ¹¹

Plutarch links the institution of the quaestorship to the consul Valerius Publicola, and consequently to the very beginning of the Republic in 509. The date smacks of convenient guesswork: since he thought that the quaestorship was a Republican institution, what could be better than dating the office’s inception to the very year in which the Republic itself was traditionally said to have been founded? Plutarch credits Publicola with the passing of a law to create the office as well as the related establishment of the temple of Saturn as the official treasury of the civitas. The function of the two quaestors was, therefore, the administration of public funds. Nothing is said about a judicial function. According to Plutarch, the quaestors were elected by the people from the very start.

Cassius Dio’s account is as follows: ‘And the management of the funds he [Valerius Publicola] assigned to others in order that those who held the consulate could not have the enormous influence that would emanate from controlling all revenues. Now for the first time treasurers (ταμί...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Introduction
• Chapter 1: The origin of the quaestorship
• Chapter 2: The development of the quaestorship and the so-called Italian quaestors
• Chapter 3: The quaestorship within the political career: Age requirements and the cursus honorum
• Chapter 4: Election, entry into office and allocation of quaestorian provinciae
• Chapter 5: The urban quaestorship
• Chapter 6: The quaestor overseas: Development and role of the quaestorship in the provinces
• Conclusions
• Appendix 1: A prosopography of the Roman Republican quaestorship
• Appendix 2: Chronological list of quaestors in the Roman Republic
• Bibliography
• Index of names
• Index of subjects