Stefania Pietrini’s Lex Iulia de pecuniis repetundis nell’interpretazione dei giuristi del principato (“Lex Iulia de pecuniis repetundis as interpreted by the jurists of the principality”), published in the series Rivista di Diritto Romano, Saggi, analyses the statements of the principate’s jurists on the lex Iulia repetundarum (“Julian law on corruption”). The book is divided into 6 chapters and comprises a total of 70 pages, including a list of sources, a bibliography and the names of the authors. This book examines the procedures for bringing political corruption to trial in ancient Rome, especially with regard to illegal monetary gains. In view of the subject matter, Latin expressions such as ‘pecuniam capere’ (to raise money), ‘pecuniam accipere’ (to receive money) and the use of the Digesta’s rich and detailed legal documentation clarify the different types of offences.[1] This study is therefore characterised by a detailed analysis that captures the nuances underlying legal linguistics. The author’s argumentation follows a trusted legal scholarship and makes excellent use of specific legal sources
The history of the ‘repetundae’, beginning with the last century of the Republic, moves through different laws in different times. As the text of the Lex Iulia of 59 BC is not directly available to us, we lack information that would enable us to reconstruct the reforms of the lex. It is therefore necessary to use other sources for the reconstruction of the law. Hence, in the first chapter (“I soggetti attivi e la condotta criminosa”), the author analyses the famous fragment by the jurist Aelius Marcianus, in Book 14 of the Institutions (D.48.11.1). This passage contains the list of active subjects of this offence (p.9). The Julian law on extortion therefore refers to money received by someone who holds the office of a judge, an authority, a deputy or another public office or profession, and also applies to the servants of the above-mentioned dignitaries. Indeed, particular attention is paid to the end of the fragment, which indicates that, in Caesar’s time, persons other than magistrates and senators were also liable to prosecution. Pietrini, however, aligns with the hypothesis—also supported by Gian Gualberto Archi – that Marcianus’ fragment is to be interpreted as synthesis focussed on doctrine (p.12).[2] The text would therefore take account of later developments in the lex and announce the expansion of the group of people who could be accused of such a crime. This hypothesis is also supported by Papinianus’ fragment D.48.11.9. Pietrini explains that a generic ‘qui’ appears in this fragment, which indicates precisely that other people could also be accused of this crime. Furthermore, in the first chapter, in the interpretation of the fragment of Aemilius Macer, D.48.11.3, a specific illicit behaviour of accepting money is reported (p.15). As Carlo Venturini notes, the fragment suggests that this is a penal hypothesis already contained in the Lex Cornelia on the ‘repetundae’ (p.15). Macer is also mentioned in the context of abuses by judges in interfering with their activities, including arrest or release.[3] It is assumed that all these actions were sanctioned in the text of the Lex 59 BC (p.19). Most likely, the active subjects of the offence were extended. The latter therefore remained punishable as repetundae in the system of ‘cognitiones extra ordinem’, as was also noted by Paolo Luciano Garbarino.[4] The first chapter is the densest in terms of content. Here, Pietrini lays the foundations of her analysis, i.e. not only the classical sources from which the reflections on the repetundae originate, but also references to the ongoing scholarly debate about them. It should therefore be emphasised that Pietrini continues her analysis through the specific hypotheses of ‘pecunias accipere’, which could be included in the Lex Iulia when considering the penal treatment of Venuleius (p.21).[5] In contrast to Carlo Venturini, Pietrini argues in favour of the possibility that the acceptance of money around the middle of the 2nd century AD could still be configured as a crimen repetundarum (p.23).[6] Pietrini also distances herself from Bernardo Santalucia’s hypothesis with regard to the fragment D. 48.11.6 of Venuleius. She claims that the ‘pecuniam accipere’ of the fragment refers to the senatus consùltum of the Lex Cornelia testamentaria nummaria (or de falsi) of 29 AD and not to the Lex Iulia de repetundis.
In the very short second chapter (“Il divieto dei donativi”), Pietrini further analyses the norm reported by Venuleius (D.48.11.6.2). Pietrini points out the contradiction to what was previously said about the absolute impossibility of donations to magistrates (p.29). In addition to the ban on magistrates, there must have been a ban on promagistrates as early as 59 BC. The Epistula 4.9 of Pliny the Younger proves the existence of a rule of the Lex Iulia in a trial for repetundae in 103 AD, which contains an absolute prohibition for the provincial governor to accept donations (p.32). In this case, Pietrini supports the reference to Pliny the Younger following the thesis of Federico Procchi.[7]
The third chapter (“Le repetundae nel Codex Leidensis”) analyses the interpretations of scholars, such as De Martino, Archi and Serrao, on fragmentum Leidense (p.37). The content of Fr. Leid. 2 is compared with the testimony of Tacitus, Annales 15.20.1 and 22.1, from which it emerges that such behaviour must have been lawful until the time of Emperor Nero. From Nero onwards it becomes crimen. (p.38). Pietrini states that only decurions or delegates attending provincial assemblies could be guilty of this offence (p.39). Fr. Leid. 3 confirms that the Lex Iulia affirmed that senators should refrain from financial speculation and gain. Above all Fr. Leid.4 should be read as confirmation of a development of the concept of crimen and the extension of imputability to senators as well (p.41). Above all Fr. Leid. 4 should be read as confirmation of a development of the discipline of crimen and the extension of imputability to senators as well (p.41). Moreover, Fr. Leid. 5 raises the problem of the equites. Pietrini concludes that the fragment clearly testifies the extension of ‘crimen’ from ‘ex lege repetundarum’ to ‘equites’ (p.43).
The fourth chapter (“Le pene nella repression Extra ordinem”) deals with the trial and punishment of offenders. Here Pietrini reports clear information from the fragment of Macer D.48.11.7.3, in which reference is made to the ‘cognitio extra ordinem’ following the ‘quaestio de repetundis’, i.e. from the Principate (p.45). This led to harsher punishments, such as deportation (‘in insulam deportari’) or the death penalty (‘capite plecti’).[8]
The fifth chapter (“Ipotesi ricostruttive del Fr. Leid. 7”) deals with the difficult reading of Fr.Leid. 7, whose possible reconstructions lead to different hypotheses about the punishments to be applied (p.49). The fragment says that what was given must be returned, in addition to any punishment. Pietrini does not dwell on examining all proposed reconstructions of the fragment. She refers directly to Fr.Leid. 6, which helps to reconstruct the incomplete part of Fr.Leid. 7, and concludes that one possible reconstruction is that a repetundae offender could not have been punished with the death penalty under the Lex Iulia, whereas it would have been permissible to sentence him only to the simplum penalty (p.53).
The sixth and final chapter (“Incapacità e limitazioni per il damnatus. Prospettive per una nuova ricerca”) shows how the damnatus would no longer be able to testify, be a judge or prosecute charges as a result of a punishment ‘ex lege Iulia’. Pietrini demonstrates how the constant transformation of ‘repetundae’ can be seen as a way to access procedures for the punishment of property offences. This path has its roots in late republican and imperial Roman history.
In each chapter, Pietrini’s analysis demonstrates the richness of the source material—or at least provides extensive reconstructive hypotheses in case of less adequate material. The footnotes and bibliography are clearly cited and enable the reader to delve deeper into the subject. Moreover, the book is clearly written by an expert in the field of law. The vocabulary is technical, but understandable also for ‘inexperienced’ readers.
Notes
[1] As the author does not translate latin phrases or quotations, the reader is advised to consult this website for the English translation of Digesta: https://www.iurisprudentia.de/digesta/scott/
[2] Cf. Archi, Gian Gualberto. I nuovi frammenti e il diritto criminale romano. Brill, 1956.
[3] Cf. Lovato, Andrea. Il carcere nel diritto penale romano. Cacucci, 1994.
[4] Garbarino, Paolo Luciano. “Ad legem Iuliam repetundarum. Profili giuridici della repressione della corruzione in età tardoantica.” Dono, controdono e corruzione. Ricerche storiche e dialogo interdisciplinare. Edizioni dell’Orso, 2017. 233-270.
[5] In the fragment D.48.11.6.2, the configuration of the ‘crimen repetundarum’ is not understood in a ‘quivis e populo’, but by a senator or one who has taken part in a consilium principis (p.22).
[6] Cf. Venturini, Carlo. “‘Ob sententiam in senatu… dicendam pecuniam accipere’. Divagazioni su senatori e’lex Iulia repetundarum’.” Studi in onore di Remo Martini. Vol. 3. Giuffrè, 2009. 891-917.
[7] Procchi, Federico. Plinio il Giovane e la difesa di C. Iulius Bassus: tra norma e persuasione. Pisa University Press, 2012.
[8] Pietrini has already worked on the trial system of cognitiones , cf. Pietrini, Stefania. Sull’iniziativa del processo criminale romano (IV-V secolo). Vol. 1. Giuffrè, 1996.