Although, since Theodor Mommsen, the quaestorship has long been perceived as a technical magistracy of little prestige, subordinate to the consulate, several recent publications have helped to demonstrate its importance in republican institutions, such as the studies by J. Prag and F.X. Ryan and especially the recent work by Fr. Pina Polo and A. Díaz Fernández, The Quaestorship in the Roman Republic (2019). Given this context, as Grégory Ioannidopoulos himself points out, one might ‘s’étonner du choix de publier’ a new book on the quaestorship, especially since many of I.’s conclusions ‘sont par ailleurs généralement similaires’ to those of Pina Polo (12). And yet: based on a doctoral thesis defended in 2019, I.’s monograph offers a valuable analysis of the quaestorship, examining all aspects of this magistracy diachronically, even if the analysis nevertheless places particular emphasis on the period from 264 to 27 b.c., for which more numerous and reliable sources are available (the oldest documentary evidence of the quaestorship is the rostra of the Aegadian Islands, 531–3); the Triumvirate period is also briefly touched upon.

I.’s work, which seeks to combine institutional, sociological and prosopographical approaches, is firmly committed to the broader revision process of the functioning of magistracies as defined by Mommsen, as evidenced, for example, by recent publications devoted to the aedileship (Daguet-Gagey, 2015) or the tribuneship of the plebs (Lanfranchi, 2015). However, due to the specific functions performed by the quaestors, it goes beyond the scope of institutional history and deals also with the administrative and financial practices of the Roman republic, although the introduction could further clarify the place and perspective of the work in this context. The book examines the quaestorship through two parts (‘définition’ and ‘fonctions’), themselves subdivided into sections and chapters. The highly detailed layout, the presence of interim conclusions and indexes (rerum, fontium and of quaestors — associated with their number in the RE and the pages on which they appear in the catalogue by Díaz Fernández) make it easy to navigate through the book. The downside is its length; certain repetitions or general considerations (e.g. on the definition of auspicia or elections) could have been removed. Furthermore, the chosen approach inevitably leads to compartmentalisation of information, even if the general conclusion helps to restore a diachronic perspective, by distinguishing three key moments in the evolution of the quaestorship (Sulla; the lex Pompeia de prouinciis of 52; Pompey and Caesar).

The first part focuses on vocabulary and is perhaps I.’s most original contribution. As a philologist by training, he studies the way quaestors were referred to in the sources (quaestor-ταμίας and their derivatives) and offers a comprehensive study of their titulatures, by combining a lexicographical analysis of literary, epigraphic and numismatic sources (the latter being used judiciously throughout the book) with a study of the powers exercised by these magistrates. The method allows him to highlight the polysemy of the terms pro quaestore (pro praetore) or quaestor pro praetore and the evolution of practices in the field of titulatures, even if the conclusions are weakened by ‘l’exiguïté de l’échantillon’ (135). The quaestorship is then examined as an ‘institution’, which leads I. to analyse the quaestors’ powers (insignia, potestas, possession of minor auspices, necessity of the curiate vote), by sometimes rigidly adopting Mommsen’s analytical framework, and to discuss the place of the quaestorship in the cursus honorum, through some topics (the number of annual positions, the mandatory or optional nature of the magistracy, and whether or not it offered access to the Senate), on which he offers useful historiographical clarifications. Three chapters examine the conditions of eligibility, quaestorian elections and the date of the quaestors’ entry into office, which is said to have been set at 5 December from Sulla onwards, in connection with the reorganisation of the quaestiones and the postponement of the praetorian sortitio to the autumn, leading to interesting remarks on the way in which quaestorian, praetorian and consular mandates were articulated.

The second part is devoted to the functions exercised by quaestors. I. starts by clarifying the meaning he gives to the terms prouincia and sortitio. The mandates and tasks of the provincial quaestors were linked to those of their superiors, who defined their prouinciae; at least from the middle republican period onwards, the allocation of quaestorian prouinciae was carried out by means of a sortitio — which would have no religious significance — while extra sortem allocations remained exceptional up to Pompey and Caesar. The quaestors’ financial and administrative duties are then meticulously described (some of these questions were also examined by C. Berrendonner, Le peuple et l’argent (2022), whose conclusions could not have been used by I., even if the opus is quoted at 472), as well as the ‘extraordinary’ duties assigned to extra-urban quaestors in Italy. I. finally examines the delegated functions (military, judicial) of provincial quaestors, and the nature of the link, called necessitudo, that united them to the curule magistrates (also studied by P. Moreau in F. Thelamon (ed.), Aux sources de la puissance … (1989), 37–46, not included in the bibliography). Throughout the book, I. takes the time to quote and translate extensively the sources (e.g. the lex Cornelia de XX quaestoribus, 543–66) and offers useful tables. The erudition of the discussion and the consistently nuanced and well-supported nature of the argument make this book a valuable resource on the quaestorship, which is well worth reading in its entirety.