Pro S. Roscio Amerino

INTRODUCTION. 15
for tlie trial of provincial governors for extortionate
conduct.
Sullas criminal legislation. The great task of organising d
a system of criminal jurisprudence was not undertaken tillj
.:
] the time of Sulla. His method was to group together|
\ crimes which resembled one another, and to appoint sepa-
rate j quaestiones, each established by a corresponding Lex
\ Cornelia, for the trial of each group. Seven Leges Gorneliae
I establishing quaestiones were passed by Sulla, lex repetundarum
or cje revetundis (wliich_jtqok the j3laceof_tlie_earlier
I
laws dealiiig with exf/qytion^. lex de maiestate, lex de pecu-
latiC^Tex de amhitu, lex de sicariis et veneficis, lex de falsis
I
(testamentariaet mimmaria),lex iniuriarum. The various
I
chapters of the lex de sicariis et veneficis treat of (1) assas-
I
I sination {sicarii = "robbers" or "assassins "), (2) poisonjudicial
murder by means
?! ing, (3) arson (incendium), (4)
^ of unjust condemnation or false evidence, (5) parricide.
The Presidents of tlie Standing Courts under SuUa.
Sulla had increased the number of the praetors from six to
eiglit ; of these, two were to have charge of the civil courts,
while the other six were to preside over the quaestiones
perpettiae. Thus the praetors were the ordinary or normal
presidents of the standing criminal courts, and the latter
were distributed among the various praetors by lot. But
from the time of Sulla there were more quaestiones than
there were praetors available for criminal jurisdiction
moreover, in some cases the quaestio had to be divided into
several branches, each branch being under a separate president.^
Hence additional presidents had to be appoiuted.
These were called quaesitores (a name also given to the
praetors as criminal judges).
It seems to have been only in the case of the court
established by the lex de sicariis et veneficis that these
presidents were regularly appointed functionaries, bearing
the official title of iudex quaestionis. At any rate it is only in
murder trials that we find mention of a iudex quaestionis,
who is formally appointed (probably by the people), and
who is obhged to swear that he will administer justice
according to the law by which he is appointed. In the case
of the other courts, the additional presidents were probably