Verres and Judicial Corruption

Author(s): Anthony J. Marshall

Source: The Classical Quarterly , Nov., 1967, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Nov., 1967), pp. 408-413
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/638014

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Classical Association and Cambridge University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to The Classical Quarterly

This content downloaded from

5.53.171.143 on Wed, 03 May 2023 17:54:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 VERRES AND JUDICIAL CORRUPTION
ONE of the most important pieces of evidence which we possess concer
the judicial rights of Roman provincials, particularly their status in relati
to the governor's tribunal, is provided by Cicero's brief outline of those p
visions of the lex Rupilia, the Sicilian provincial charter, which dealt w
judicial administration. The passage reads as follows:
Siculi hoc iure sunt ut, quod civis cum cive agat, domi certet suis legib
quod Siculus cum Siculo non eiusdem civitatis, ut de eo praetor iudice
P. Rupili decreto, quod is de decem legatorum sententia statuit, quam
legem Rupiliam vocant, sortiatur. Quod privatus a populo petit aut populu
a privato, senatus ex aliqua civitate qui iudicet datur, cum alternae civita
reiectae sunt; quod civis Romanus a Siculo petit, Siculus iudex, quod Siculu
a civi Romano, civis Romanus datur; ceterarum rerum selecti iudices
conventu civium Romanorum proponi solent.I

Cicero supplies this information as a preliminary to his tale of Verr

flagrant disregard. Fortunately, he claims to quote as part of his indictme
the wording from Verres' edict which, as he contends, made a mockery of
judicial guarantees of the lex. The edictal ruling, given in oblique quota
reads as follows:

Si qui perperam iudicasset, se cogniturum; cum cognosset, animadver-

surum.2

My purpose is to examine this decree as an administrative measure in its own

right instead of following the scholars who have simply accepted it as an item
in a hostile indictment. By subjecting it to analysis apart from its rhetorical
setting of imputed motive and sweeping generalization, I hope to shed light
on Rome's general policy in this matter and perhaps show reason for doubting
Cicero's interpretation of this detail of Verres' r6gime.
The first task is to establish the class ofjudge to whom this decree is directed.
Two main identifications are possible. It could have been either the Roman
iudex appointed by the governor (or his judicial deputy) to try cases involving
Roman citizens under Roman civil law at the assizes, or the native magistrate
who operated the Greek city courts. But the former alternative is in itself most
improbable. While the Roman iudex may have been liable to legal action for
his mistakes,3 it is unlikely that a governor would threaten with punishment
Roman residents of such dignified station in a document accessible to the
Verr. 2. 2. 13- 32. For discussion of the
guerra acaica ad Augusto (Rome, 1946), pp. 36 f.
lex, see Th. Mommsen, Romisches Staatsrecht 2 Verr. 2. 2. 33. For the use of 'perperam'
(Leipzig, 1887), iii. 745f.; A. H. J. in a legal context cf. Pro Caecina 69; for the
wording of the protasis cf. D. Daube, Forms
Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero's Time
(Oxford, 1901) pp. 114 f.; G. Rotondi, Leges
of Roman Legislation (Oxford, 1956), pp. 4 f-
Publicae Populi Romani (Milan, 1912), p. 489; 3 Not attested before Gaius, Institutes
J. Carcopino, La Loi d'Hidron et les Romains
4.- 52; Digest 5. 1. 16. Cf. Ad Q.Fr. I. I. 3. Io
(Paris, 1919), pp. 7If., I44 f.; V. M. and 7- 2o for the governor's duty to supervise
Scrarnuzza in T. Frank, An Economic Survey his own judicial delegates, and Pro Flacco
of Ancient Rome (Baltimore, 1937), iii. 246 f.;
4- 11 for removal of a Roman recuperator from
S. Accame, II dominio romano in Grecia dalladuty for partiality.

This content downloaded from

5.53.171.143 on Wed, 03 May 2023 17:54:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 VERRES AND JUDICIAL CORRUPTION 409

provincial community. Nor is it easy to believe that he

openly to possible corruption on the part of Roman assize ju
The other alternative, that the judge so sternly admonishe
the native magistrate of the Greek city courts, can be clearly
the details of the wording with which Cicero introduces th

Haec omnia isto praetore non modo perturbata, sed p

civibus Romanis erepta sunt. Primum suae leges: quod civis c
eum iudicem quem commodum erat,-praeconem, harus
suum,-dabat, aut si legibus erat iudicium constitutum
iudicem venerant, libere civi iudicare non licebat. Edict
cognoscite, quo edicto omnia iudicia redegerat in suam
The words which I have italicized correspond closely to t
first regulation described by Cicero in his resum6 of the le
regulation which provided for trial of suits between fellow
city in their own city court under local law. Cicero commenc
flouting of the lex ('primum') by describing how the first of
ignored, and his clear reiteration of this particular word
mediately preceding description of the lex places it beyond
edict applied only to judgements given in the Greek city
law by Greek judges. The edict relates, therefore, to the jud
of the local authorities and not to those of the Roman tribu
This point requires clear statement since some confusion h
faulty analysis of the passage. Mommsen related it to his di
ployment of judicial delegates by the Roman governor, i
latter's revisory powers over the judicial work of his delega
hear appeals from his court. Mommsen assumed that the ed
refers to judges in the courts over which Verres' own de
quaestor, presided, and that Verres used it to reserve the ri
case treated in this court and retry it himself. On his theor
governor's intervention was to lead to actual retrial of th
punishment of the judge. An odd scepticism led him, furth
that Verres intended this edict to cover only those cour
in operation by his judical delegates, and that Cicero craftil
impression that it referred to all courts.3
His discussion is hardly helpful since, as I have shown,
x Status of Romans employed for'quod
phrase judicial
civis cum civi ageret' (section
business in Sicily: Verr. 2. 2. 29. 70, that
33) shows 'hone-
the litigants were Greek, the
stos'; 2. 2. 71, 'equitem Romanum'; 2. leges'
words 'suae 2. 79,show that the trials con-
'honestos'; 2. 2. 81, 'viris primariis'; 2. 3. 'domi' by local law,
cerned were conducted
136, 'conventus honestus Syracusis, multi
while the use of 'ad civem suum iudicem
equites Romani, viri primarii,venerant'
ex qua shows
copiathat the judge was Greek.
recuperatores reici oporteret.' Cf. Pro Flacco
3 Rimisches Strafrecht (Leipzig, 1898),
40, Equites serve in Asia; SEG ix 8, p. 467, n. 4; Rdm. Staatsr. i3. 233. F. H.
11. 4 f., a census requirement for iudicesCowles,
in Gaius Verres; An Historical Study
Cyrene. Cyrene Edict I (ibid., 11. 7 f.)
(Ithaca, 1917), p. 34, seems also to relate
makes the first reference in a public decree the decree to judges appointed by Verres.
to corruption among Roman jurors in the E. Costa, Cicerone giureconsultoz (Bologna,
provinces. 1927), ii. 42 and 159, n. 4, relates the decree
2 Taken in conjunction with the clause in to Verres' own court and endorses Momm-
section 32, 'Siculi hoc iure sunt ut, quod civis sen's interpretation.
cum cive agat, domi certet suis legibus', the

This content downloaded from

5.53.171.143 on Wed, 03 May 2023 17:54:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
410 A. J. MARSHALL

apply to Roman officials at all. Moreo

and retrial. In the sole instance adduc
applied the edict to a supposed case of j
to have quashed the trial and punished
which, despite obvious distortion and
miniscent of the consequences of infami
appeal to Verres from either of the liti
retry the case himself. His official inter
punishment of judicial corruption, a pr
than judicial in character. The merits
his immediate concern, and the case bel
the lex Rupilia had originally relieved th
It is true that Cicero elsewhere mentions the edict in connexion with a
possible trial in the governor's own court. Here, however, the corruption which
Cicero claims to expose is on the part of would-be litigants, not judges, and
no trial had actually been held at the time in question. Cicero mentions the
edict here not to state that it should have been applied to Verres' court but to
charge him with inconsistency in threatening punishment for corrupt judge-
ments in other courts while allowing corrupt litigants within his own sphere of
competence to go unpunished.3
An analysis similar to that of Mommsen was propounded by A. H. J.
Greenidge, who likewise quotes the edict in order to illustrate the nature of
judicial delegation by the Roman governor.4 Generalizing from the edict in
question, he says of Verres:
'But his edicts on other occasions seem to show a more definite design of
revising the decisions of the iudicia of his province that rested on his own or
on delegated jurisdiction.'
I Verr. 2. 2. 27. 66. For infamia resulting
For the later growth of appeal from the city
from conviction of judicial corruption, seecourts to the Roman authorities, see, e.g.,
O. Lenel, Das Edictum Perpetuum3 (Leipzig, IGRR 4- 1044, with W. R. Paton and E. L.
Hicks, The Inscriptions of Cos (Oxford, 1891),
1927), PP. 77 f., 92 f. Cowles (above, p. 409,
pp. 41 f.; Aelius Aristides, On Rome, chs.
n. 3), P- 40 accepts Cicero's version of the
38-39; Plut. Moralia 8I4 f.; Philostr. Vit.
judge's punishment as literally accurate. Verr.
Soph. I. 25 (532).
2. 2. 56-57 suggests that Verres' procedure
3 Verr. 2. 2. 57; cf. 2. 2. 59, 'suum de-
would be advocatio of defendant and witnesses,
then personal cognitio aided by a consilium. cretum pecunia esse temptatum'.
But the iudicia reversed by Verres' successor4 Op. cit. (above, p. 401, n. I), 295-6. He
as governor (Verr. 2. 2. 62-63) were decisions
was possibly misled by his view (ibid. I I4)
of Verres' own court and not relevant to the that under the lex Rupilia it was the governor
edict under discussion. who appointed the native judge to try cases
2 Similarly, Cicero gives no hint in de- between citizens of the same state. There
scriptions of his own assize work in Ciliciais no evidence to support this theory, and it
that he allowed appeal from the city courts,is not probable that the governor played any
role
whose autonomy he allowed by edict (Ad at all in suits in which two non-Roman
Att. 6. I. 15) to his tribunal. Had he done so,litigants were dealt with in their home city
we would surely read of it in letters where he under local law. This clause of the lex simply
boasts of his reform of magisterial corruption.absolved him of direct responsibility for in-
See Ad Att 6. 2. 5; Ad Fam. 3. 8. 5. Transfer ternal civil business of the Greeks, which he
of a suit from city to Roman court is granted had neither time nor reason to administer.
as a special privilege for a limited class of In Pliny's day, Sicily contained as many as
cases to three provincials in the senatus-sixty-eight towns (N.H. 3. 8. 88); cf. E. W.
consultum de Asclepiade et sociis of 78 B.C.Gray's brief but valuable remarks in JRS
(IGRR I. I1 8, 11. 28 f.); this suggests that
xlii (1952), 124.
such access was not normally available then.

This content downloaded from

5.53.171.143 on Wed, 03 May 2023 17:54:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 VERRES AND JUDICIAL CORRUPTION 411

Greenidge does not observe that the jurisdiction in question

city courts, reserved to them by the lex provinciae and not in
to them by the governor. He proceeds to discuss the question
the terms of the edict, the governor was supposed to rehear
and grant a new formula, as in the Roman law procedure of in in
and concludes that if corruption of the iudex were prove
probably have been sent to a new iudex under the same formu
governor or a Roman judge is, however, nowhere atteste
concerned are clearly cases tried by the city courts unde
Greenidge claims to find, in the application of the edict w
tioned, an instance of in integrum restitutio. But this passage
any retrial by a Roman court, and Verres' cognitio is concerne
not with the dispute between the litigants.2
The edict, therefore, gave notice that the governor would pe
gate cases of alleged corruption in the local city judiciaries an
ders. The wording of the edict will yield nothing further
nature of this edict has been clarified it remains to discuss i
framework of the Roman administration. Cicero, of course,
a scandalous attack on local rights intended to intimidate
into compliance with Verres' corrupt schemes. Mommsen acc
presentation and termed the edict an 'exorbitante Aufstellun
imputed by Cicero in court-room rhetoric cannot be simply
critical analysis. This edict does not, as its formal terms stan
the rights of local judicial independence granted in the lex R
be used to reinforce those rights by ensuring the integrity of
Only the Roman governor had the overriding power needed
know that in other provinces at that time the extent of loca
dence hinged on the governor's decision in his edict, a fa
the inference that the governors of these provinces could
some right of supervision of local courts to ensure probity.4
reveals that Verres had actually reinforced the regulations o
concerning judicial autonomy by including them in his edictum
which again suggests that their proper implementation w
governor's concern. This reinforcement of the lex in the edi
does not blame, and the ruling on judicial corruption, which
Verr. 2. 2. 32, 'domi certet suis legibus'.
capite suo putaret iudicaturum'. This m
See A. H. M. Jones, JRS xxvi (1936),
it clear229
thatf.any trial by Verres resulting f
application
and xxxi (1941), 26 f., for argument againstof the edict was to be tr
Mommsen's theory that citizens the
of iudex,
unprivi-not retrial of the suit.
leged provincial cities were dediticii with
3 Rlim. no
Strafrecht, p. 467, n. 4. Costa (ab
rights save those allowed themp. de409,
facto n. by
3), 2- 42 echoes this with t
censorious
Rome. They were, rather, peregrini belonging phrase 'una esorbitanza illeg
to communities whose autonomy 4 was basedautonomy regulated in Cice
Judicial
edict
on the lexprovinciae. See also W. W. for Cilicia: Ad Att. 6. I. 15; 6. 2
Buckland,
'L' "Edictum provinciale"', Revue onhistorique
which see J. A. O. Larsen, "'Fore
de Droit frangais et itranger, 4th series,in
Judges" xiii
Cicero Ad Atticum vi. I. i5
(1934), 8i f., for the absence ofxliii (1948), 187-90. Cicero's ruling c
non-Roman
from the edict of Q. Mucius Scaevola
civil law from the governor's edict.
2 Op. cit. (above, p. 408, n. I), 296,
Asia, n. Cicero
and I, implies that his predec
Ap.
on Verr. 2.2.66; cf. Verr. 2. 2. 33, Claudius
'cum iudex Pulcher had not allowed
alium de suo iudicio putaret iudicaturum
Presumably, the grant might be with
seque in eo capitis periculum on
aditurum,
the ground of previous abuse.
voluntatem spectaret eius quem statim de

This content downloaded from

5.53.171.143 on Wed, 03 May 2023 17:54:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 412 A. J. MARSHALL

from the jurisdiction of the local court

congruous measures.'
The edict was, then, formally proper
the probity of the local courts which m
Cicero himself to furnish the answer in
further for clues. A Roman who recalled
Greek officialdom might be excused for
indignant prosecutor was himself to dis
Greek magistrates were capable of em
Indeed, judicial corruption, and the co
was one of the factors which produce
Greek world of the practice of importin
to deal with routine civil business. This
while the internal troubles which upset
recourse to this device certainly did not
of Roman rule.3
Verres' action in trying a provincial on a charge of falsifying the city
records, after refusal to allow him trial in his city court, may reveal a similar
concern to ensure efficient local administration by punishment of corruption.
Here again, Cicero describes the affair as an invasion of local rights and as-
sumes that Verres' interest in the records was entirely discreditable. Verres, he
urges, wished to obliterate the record of his own misdeeds. But in this case
also Verres' action in itself admits of another interpretation as the reflection
of a sound administrative vigilance and a reasonable supervisory control.
Although Cicero raises the emotive cry of interference with the judicial guaran-
tees of the lex Rupilia here once again, he does so similarly in objection to an
I Verres' edictal coverage: Verr. 2. 2. 90.for an attack on peculation by Greek magis-
The decree under discussion presumably ap-trates, and Ad Q. Fr. I. I. 5. 16 for an
peared in his edictum perpetuum also, as a interesting assessment of Greek untrust-
qualification after his duplication of the lexworthiness. Pliny detected embezzlement by
Rupilia regulations; his ruling 'si qui per-officials of Prusa (Ep. I . I7 A), while Ger-
peram iudicarit senatus' (Verr. 2. 2. 34)manicus dealt with 'magistratuum iniuriae'
similarly qualified his edictal clause confirm-in the Greek East (Tac. Ann. 2. 54).-
ing the judicial duties of city councils which 3 Imported judges a remedy for corrup-
were assigned by the lex. Pliny, Ep. 10o. 79,tion: W. W. Tarn and G. T. Griffith,
shows that the governor was recognized asHellenistic Civilizations (London, 1952), p. 88;
the proper authority for interpretation ofM. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic
regulations for local administration in the lexHistory of the Hellenistic World (Oxford, I941),
provinciae and for supervision of its working.p. 613. Their use occasioned by civil discord:
Note that the Senate itself was prepared tosee, e.g., CIG 2671; IG 12. 5. 1065; BCH 1
quash by decree verdicts of local courts which(1926), no. 13, 1. II. For their use in the
it thought unjust; cf. the senatusconsultum deRoman period, see L. Robert, BCH lii (1928),
Asclepiade, etc. (above, p. 41o, n. 2), 11.417 f.-; J. A. O. Larsen, CP xxxviii (1943),
32 f. 252-3. For biased city courts under Roman
2 Polybius 6. 56. 13 (Greek magistrates rule, see, e.g., SIG3 780, 11. 30f. (Cnidus).
not to be trusted with public funds) ; 18. 34. 7 For faction and class bitterness in Roman
(bribery prevalent in Greek public life). Sicily, see Diod. Sic. 35. 2. 48, with Scra-
Cicero's boasts of successful treatment of this muzza (above, p. 408, n. i), 242-3. For the
corruption (Ad Att. 6. 2. 5; Ad Fam. 3. 8. 5) same in the E. Greek cities, see, e.g., Cicero,
establish both that it was a proper matter Ad Q. Fr. I. I. 8. 25; Pro Flacco 18; Pliny,
for the governor's attention and that vigilance Ep. 10, nos. 34, 92, 93; Philostr. Vit. Soph.
was needed. As defence counsel for a gover- I. 25 (531); Rostovtzeff, op. cit., 970f.;
nor, Cicero makes great play of the un- P. A. Brunt, Historia x (1961), 213-14; G. W.
reliability of Greeks in court in Pro Flacco Bowersock, Augustus and the Greek World
9-10; II-12; 23; 36; 37. Cf. ibid. 43 and 45, (Oxford, 1965), chs. I and 8.

This content downloaded from

5.53.171.143 on Wed, 03 May 2023 17:54:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 VERRES AND JUDICIAL CORRUPTION 413

investigation of local administration which could have rev

serious corruption.'
As to Verres' application of the edictal ruling on judicial
only Cicero's hostile oration to inform us. But we may at
the decree itself, so far from being an obvious threat to th
local courts, might have been used to ensure it. Indeed, it
what personal interest Verres could have had in the great
business which came before the Greek city courts. Ap
generalizations to the effect that the edict caused widespr
the intimidation of judges, Cicero adduces no actual ca
the city courts which was distorted to suit the whim of
mentions only one case of the actual application of the ed
ment, which is hardly impressive evidence for widespread
does not refer to any retrial of this case, by the same or
to suit Verres' wishes.2
In conclusion, I suggest that, while this decree yields no information as to
the relation of the Roman governor to his judicial delegate, it does provide
some illustration of the governor's supervisory control over the local city ad-
ministration in the particular area of the judiciary, and of the measures which
he might take to ensure its efficiency.3 Such close supervision of municipal
administration is no enormity and can be paralleled in the regimes of Cicero
and Pliny, who are portrayed in the sources, largely through their own efforts,
as model governors. I further suggest that we have reason to view with caution
Cicero's use of this edict to blacken Verres. So far from promoting judicial
corruption, Verres may even have been seeking to prevent it.

Queen's University, Kingston, Canada ANTHONY J. MARSHALL

See Verr. 2. 2. 90of.; 2. 2. 60 for such 2 Charges of intimidation by the edict:

trials, apparently by the governor's cognitio. Verr. 2. 2. 33; 67. Its application: Verr.
Verres' corrupt motive: Verr. 2. 5. 103; cf. 2. 2. 66. Cowles (above, p. 409, n. 3), 34 en-
2. I. 88 for a similar charge that he inter- dorses Cicero's contention and agrees that
fered in the records of Miletus. For these by directing the edict at the courts Verres
city records, see A. H. M. Jones, The Greek 'of course practically dictated the verdicts'.
E. Ciaceri, Cicerone e i suoi tempi (Milan,
City (Oxford, 1940), p. 238; L. Robert, Itudes
Anatoliennes (Paris, 1937), PP- 453, 459,1939),
487. 1. 61, also condemns the edict as a
ruse to control all verdicts.
For local law on the subject of their falsifica-
tion, see Verr. 2. 2. 90o; Pro Flacco 39. The
3 Note that the governor was himself made
Dyme inscription (SIG3 684, 11. 8 andliable23) for judicial corruption by the lex Iulia
lists the burning of the public archives during
depecuniis repetundis of 59 B.C. (Digest 48. I I. 3).
a political disturbance as a matter of serious
The corresponding duty to supervise the
concern to Rome. To suit his purposeintegrity
as of the city courts of his province
could, in turn, only be his.
defence counsel, Cicero stresses Greek willing-
ness to falsify records in Pro Flacco 20-21 ; 36.

This content downloaded from

5.53.171.143 on Wed, 03 May 2023 17:54:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms