The controversy over the date of q. Licinius Lucullus’ quaestorship and the inscription from Mopsuestia: the terminology for describing public offices

Abstract

This paper charts the scholarly debates about the date of L. Licinius Lucullus’ quaestorship (and, therefore, his proquaestorship). The issue has been under discussion since the 1870s and is still far from being resolved given the discovery in the 1980s of a Greek inscription from Mopsuestia [1] which compels us to reconsider Lucullus’s official position in the 80s B. C. In the section which has been recognized by modern researchers as Lucullus’ official letter to the authorities and the people of Mopsuestia, Lucullus gives his title as ταμίας καὶ ἀντιστράτηγος, which corresponds to the Latin title quaestor pro praetore. The first editors of the inscription date the letter of Lucullus to 86 B. C, which contradicts the earlier scholarly suggestions to place Lucullus’ quaestorship in 88 or 87 B. C. In this connection, it is important to ask about the specificity of the epigraphical terminology for quaestors and proquaestors, especially in the cases where these officials were given power pro praetore. This paper reviews the wide variety of incompatible modern views on these issues and argues that the key to clarifying the specific situation of L. Licinius Lucullus and the date of his quaestorship is to study the evidence on all known cases of the activities of quaestors/proquaestors pro praetore. This will make it possible to examine Lucullus’s position within the general context of the Roman practice of granting praetorian powers to the lower magistrates and promagistrates.