INTRODUCTION

Anyone interested in Cicero as a legal thinker and his importance in the development of Roman law will find herself facing a somewhat paradoxical situation. On the one hand, Cicero is often counted among the greatest ancient thinkers on law, while on the other his name and writings are largely absent from ancient Roman legal scholarship. A quick glance reveals that the Institutes of Gaius, a text from the second century Ad, do not cite Cicero by name. Likewise, the fifty books of Justinian's Digest, our most important source for juristic writings, mention Cicero only a handful of times. Even when it comes to the reception of ideas, Cicero's presence seems limited; it is at least sufficiently elusive as to create ample scholarly disagreement. Yet Cicero undeniably had an extensive interest in legal matters, ranging from the wording of wills to questions about natural justice, and there is every indication that much of his oeuvre has circulated widely since his lifetime. For these reasons, it is worth considering how Cicero and his works were received by the jurists and how we should understand his relatively marginal presence in Roman legal thought.

The relation between Cicero and the Roman jurists has undergone thorough scholarly scrutiny, albeit mostly from a Ciceronian perspective. Designated by Latin words such as iure consultus or iuris peritus or simply prudens, a jurist functioned as a legal advisor to individuals with questions about the ‘proper’ interpretation of the law, which could involve written as well as unwritten law. A jurist's answer, specific to the case at hand and known as a responsum, could be cited in court in support of one's case. The authority of responsa was a function of the authority of their authors, who needed to be experts on customary practices in order to find a solution that could be considered ‘right’– that is, a solution in line with traditional interpretations of statutes, or customary law, or, in lack thereof, Roman traditions. We should note at the outset that Cicero is generally not considered a jurist, either by the ancients or by modern scholars. The main reason is that Cicero, when pleading a case in the courtroom, is out primarily to win the suit for his client and as such acts as an advocate, not a jurist.