Gambling has been constructed as a vice, a deviant, criminal or criminogenic activity at various stages throughout history (Banks, 2016). The phenomenon is as old as the pleasures and problematics associated with it. The problems primarily pertain to gambling addiction and criminal activities. The latter traditionally involve forms of fraud and money laundering (Planzer, 2014).
Epidemiological studies show that the large majority of people do not gamble excessively, but a minority experience severe problems that are recognised as a mental health disorder (Planzer, 2014). The American Psychiatric Association (APA) initially considered ‘pathological gambling’ (APA, 1994) as an impulse control disorder, characterised by chronic and progressive failure in resisting impulses to gamble (Pavalko, 2001).
In line with the latest fifth (text revision) edition of APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR), the APA posits that gambling behaviours activate reward systems similar to those activated by drugs of abuse and that those produce some behavioural symptoms that appear comparable to those produced by the substance use disorders (APA, 2022). Gambling disorder involves repeated, problematic gambling behaviour. The behaviour leads to troubles for the individual, families and society. Individuals, both adults and adolescents, grappling with the gambling disorder are experiencing difficulties with controlling of their gambling. They cannot stop even when it causes significant losses. A diagnosis of gambling disorder is made if at least four criteria from the ones listed below are met during the year:
Need to gamble with increasing amounts to achieve the desired excitement. Restless or irritable when trying to cut down or stop gambling. Repeated unsuccessful efforts to control, cut back on or stop gambling. Frequent thoughts about gambling (such as reliving past gambling or planning future gambling). Often gambling when feeling distressed. After losing money in gambling, often returning to get even (This is referred to as ‘chasing’ one’s losses.). Lying to hide gambling activity. Risking or losing a close relationship, a job or a school or job opportunity because of gambling. Relying on others to help with money problems caused by gambling (Colon-Rivera, 2021).
Gambling involves risking something of value in the hopes of obtaining something of greater value. In many cultures, individuals gamble on games and events, and most do so without experiencing problems. However, some individuals develop substantial impairment related to their gambling behaviours (APA, 2013).
One of the most striking features to emerge from a cursory glance at the phenomenon is its almost universal prevalence throughout history and across cultures (Reith, 1999).
This article presents the results derived from primary source research in the realm of Roman law, undertaken by the authors to delve into and assess the regulation surrounding the gambling phenomenon in the ancient Roman society.
In the context of the study, the authors have researched and analysed the information contained in the so-called Justinian’s codifications, also known as ‘
When familiarising ourselves with the regulatory framework found in the sources of Roman law, we have to establish that, just like nowadays, the ancient Roman society also suffered from the negative effects of the spread of various games of chance. Economic losses, socially unpleasant situations, personal tragedies, etc. occurred. As a result of gamblers’ reckless and excessively frenzy actions, significant financial funds and other material resources—precious metals, precious stones, technological equipment—were lost. In this way, social tension and individual dissatisfaction have increased.
At the same time, sources point to the age-old nature and truly international, multicultural character of the gambling phenomenon, as well as its special popularity among representatives of certain social groups and professions (e.g. soldiers): ‘Dice/game of chance is an old thing, and [for soldiers] outside the works of warfare allowed, bearing the names of thousands of nations, truly from the [beginning] of time [only] tears have been created. Some have actually so played, not even knowing/understanding [the] game, but [its] name only, [that way] they have lost their wealth, because of playing day and night for silver, tools/equipment, gems and gold. As a result, therefore, [coming] out of this mess, they try to blaspheme [God] and make [debt] instruments/promissory notes’ 1 (C 3.43.1.pr.).
Gambling places were characterised by a very tense criminogenic situation. Sources describe instances of violent robberies among the gamblers themselves (‘If [violent] robberies are committed among the gamblers themselves’2), and violent robberies against gambling organisers—holders of gambling venues (D 11.5.1.1).
Also, other types of violence were not left out—beatings of gambling organisers causing them damage (D 11.5.1.pr., D 11.5.1.2) and violence acts against gamblers (D 11.5.1.pr., D 11.5.1.4), including forcing (D 11.5.1.4) them to play: ‘Actually/indeed some also force [others] to play, from [the] beginning or [later] defeated hold [them] back while [try to regain the lost]’3 (D 11.5.2.pr.) etc.
Similarly, thefts4 were common (D 11.5.1.3) including thefts targeting holders of gambling venues (D 11.5.1.2) and fraudulent activities involving the use of falsehood (D 11.5.1.pr), etc.
In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the Roman state authorities concluded the necessity of gambling regulation. Thus, in the Code of Justinian (
It should be noted that, based on available sources, attempts to regulate gambling predate Justinian I. Hence, the sources indicate the existence of a prior regulatory act issued by the Roman Senate, specifically addressing the prohibition of gambling for money: ‘Decree of the Senate8 forbids gambling for money¼’ 9 (D 11.5.2.1)
Gambling issues were addressed by the Roman praetors,10 who issued relevant edicts11 as part of the exercise of their administrative and legal authority (see e.g. D 11.5.1.pr., D 11.5.1.3, D 11.5.1.4).
The sources mention the laws12 from the times of the Roman Republic regarding betting on sports competitions and the legal status of gambling debts—
There is an opinion that the above-mentioned Cornelian law—
The problems arising from the phenomenon of spread of gambling were addressed by the representatives of the so-called classical jurisprudence (
According to the sources, the topic of gambling has been examined by jurists Pomponius (
Thus, we can assume that in the course of historical development of the Ancient Roman state, there was almost always one or another regime of legal regulation of the gambling phenomenon. Or at least some elements of such regulation were present (Apsītis and Joksts, 2024).
Upon examining the content of the Roman legal norms that regulate the phenomenon of gambling, it becomes evident that the authors of these norms maintained a generally pragmatic approach. Therefore, the constitution issued by Emperor Justinian in AD 529, as mentioned earlier, includes a broad declarative prohibition on gambling in both public and private spaces. Both participating in the game and watching it being played were formally prohibited. However, there was no provision for the public prosecution by the state authorities for the violation of the aforementioned prohibition—‘and if the opposite action had taken place, then conviction should not follow’.13
Instead, the legal framework offered private mechanisms to protect the interests of the gambling victims—specifically, those who incurred losses during the game. Gambling debts lacked court protection; obligations purportedly stemming from game results were deemed invalid, necessitating the return of sums actually paid by the gambling victim. If a voluntary return had not taken place, the gambling victim had the right to lodge a claim in court and reclaim what he had paid: ‘¼but [the person who lost] should be released [from the obligation] [and what he paid] should be returned, and with proper claims be reclaimed¼ ‘.14
The right to lodge a claim was granted to the victim-loser himself, his heirs, or, in the absence of claims from either party, extended to the fathers of their families and representatives—defenders (C 3.43.1.1).
A statute of limitations of 50 years was established for this category of claims: ‘There is no bar [to claim], except, in any case, an objection of fifty-year statute of limitations’ 15 (C 3.43.1.2).
The duty to ensure public supervision of fulfilment of the above-mentioned conditions was assigned to the local bishop of the Christian church, who could request the support of the local military garrison for this purpose: ‘To the bishops of the [relevant] place this for investigation and the garrison for supportive use’16 (C 3.43.1.3).
Another example of a highly pragmatic policy of gambling regulation that must be mentioned is the condition contained in the same constitution to allow certain types of games to be played, albeit limiting the amount of permissible bets: ‘Then really let’s arrange five games—
The legislator—emperor Justinian had a different and clearly negative attitude towards the game called ‘wooden horses’ (
Those who lost in ‘wooden horses’ had the right to recover his losses: ‘¼but if someone lost [something] from this incident, let him get it back’ 19 (C 3.43.2.pr.). If, for any reason, the losers chose not to reclaim their losses, the state assumed the right to those lost sums for use in public needs: ‘the procurator (financial administrator) should investigate it and turn it into public work’ 20 (C 3.43.2.1).
The emperor was being very strict to the organisers and supporters of such a game, who risked the confiscation of their real estate for the benefit of the state: ‘¼ make their buildings/houses public/confiscate where it [gaming] is discovered’21 (C 3.43.2.pr.) (Apsītis and Joksts, 2024).
As is known, along with the normative acts issued by Justinian himself, as well as by the Roman emperors who had reigned before him, which by order of Emperor Justinian, are included in the so-called Code of Justinian (
Concerning gambling, Digest, among other texts, contains a fragment from the writings of the jurist Ulpianus (
Similarly, the organiser of gambling was not entitled to receive judicial protection in the event when he was violently robbed (D 11.5.1.1) or something was stolen from his house: ‘¼the praetor denies ¼the claim of theft [needs to be] giving’, 25 (D 11.5.1.3)—even then if it turned out that the thief is not one of the gamblers at all: ‘¼indeed [when] the theft is committed in a house/building and while game of chance is being played, the gambler may [even] not be [the one] who did it to him, [so that] would do with impunity’ 26 (D 11.5.1.2).
In this connection, Ulpianus, among other things, tries to give an explanation of the meaning of the concept ‘house-home’ (
It should be noted that in the Ancient Roman society, the attitude towards gambling organisers was much harsher than the attitude towards ordinary gamblers. According to Ulpianus, in cases where robberies took place among the gamblers themselves, the victims had the right to file a claim for robbery against perpetrators. However, if the organiser of the game was robbed, he could not claim the right to file such a claim: ‘If [violent] robberies have been committed between the co-players themselves, a claim for the violently stolen property will not be denied, really it is forbidden only to avenge/protect the entertainer/organizer, but not the coplayers, although they are also considered infamous’ 28 (D 11.5.1.1) (Apsītis and Joksts, 2024).
Based on the mentioned reference of the jurist Ulpianus (
According to Ulpianus, such an act was punishable by a monetary or mine penalty, or by putting the culprit in shackles: ‘¼so that the punishment is either with a fine or in a mine/quarry or in public shackles’ 30 (D 11.5.1.4) (Apsītis and Joksts, 2024).
Digest or Pandects (
According to writings of the jurist Paulus, it was allowed to play during family parties—for party treats—edibles: ‘What is put on the table [for the purpose of eating] at the party—[people] from the family are allowed to play on those things’ 35 (D 11.5.4.pr.) (Apsītis and Joksts, 2024).
According to the Roman legal concepts, all free people—persons were divided into two categories: (1) persons with their own rights (
This mainly referred to the order in the Roman patriarchal family (
These conditions were equally applicable in situations involving gamblers as well. According to the writings of the Roman jurist Paulus, if the person under the father’s authority incurred losses in the game, the right to bring a claim for the recovery of the losses rested with the father of his family: ‘If ¼ the son of the family is defeated [in gambling], the father ¼ holds the claim’ 36 (D 11.5.4.1).
Similarly, if a person under the father’s authority had triumphed in a game of chance, the victim could claim from the father of the perpetrator’s family: ‘Against parents¼request¼for playing dice¼is given’37 (D 11.5.4.2).
Roman slaves were not recognised as persons; consequently, they did not have legal capacity—rights. It was determined by one of the three private law systems existing in Rome—
In accordance with the
The slave’s legal status was equal to any other thing in the possession of his master—the slave was not the subject of law, but the object of law. A slave could not acquire property (D 50.17.118), undertake obligations (D 50.17.22; exception—a slave could undertake obligations in the name and responsibility of his master, see: I 3.17 pr.; I 3.17.1.; D 15.4 tit), to be a defendant or plaintiff in court (D 50.17.107), to perform various duties entrusted only to freemen (D 50.17.175), to undertake service for the good of the state (D 50.17.211), etc. (Apsītis, 2020).
Thus, the master was entitled to reclaim the property lost by his slave. Likewise, for the recovery of the slave’s winnings, a claim had to be brought against his master: ‘¼if the slave has accepted the money, a claim from the
The father (owner) had the right to freely increase or decrease the amount of
Similarly to situations with a person under the power of the father or a slave, it was necessary to act correspondingly also in the case when the winner of the game of chance was in a client–patron relationship. Respectively, a claim could be brought against client’s patron for the recovery of the client’s winnings (D 11.5.4.2).
It should be explained here—the beginnings of the institution of patronage can be traced back to the ancient Roman tradition, when in the first centuries after the city had been established, various immigrants who settled in the city sought protection of the patrician
The client–patron relationship imposed mutual obligations, although it was not considered a contract—the connection was more moral, based on trust (
Clients were legally free people, but initially their condition was close to slavery; clients also had no political rights. Over the centuries, the situation improved, and even members of the same social class could find themselves in the patron–client situation. Thus, the patron could promote, for example, the political career of his client, while the clients could provide their patron with guaranteed votes in the elections of state officials.
A freedman freed from slavery also became a client of his former master, which meant the obligation to provide material support to the patron if necessary, to render some free services, to help in the election campaign, etc. The patron, in his turn, tried to ensure a certain level of well-being for his freedman or to help in some other way—the well-being of the clients was considered a proof of the patron’s own influence and economie power (Apsītis, 2020).
As previously mentioned, according to Justinian’s constitutions, the public supervision of the gambling regime was entrusted to the local bishops of the Christian Church, who implemented it with the help of a local military garrison (C 3.43.1.3, C 3.43.1.4).
On the other hand, the judges, whose duties were performed by the administrative officials of the empire during this period of the development of the Roman Empire, were given the authority to ensure that blasphemy and false oaths—giving false testimony—did not occur in cases related to gambling: ‘Also, let the judges make sure that everyone refrains from blasphemy and false oaths/false testimony’ 39(C 3.43.2.2) (Apsītis and Joksts, 2024).
Just like nowadays, the ancient Roman society also suffered from the negative effects of the spread of various games of chance. At the same time, sources point to the age-old nature and truly international, multicultural character of the gambling phenomenon, as well as its special popularity among representatives of certain social groups and professions (C 3.43.1.pr.).
Gambling places were characterized by a very tense criminogenic situation. Sources contain information on violent robberies (D 11.5.1.1) and other types of violence (D 11.5.1.pr., D 11.5.1.2, D 11.5.1.4, D 11.5.2.pr.), thefts (D 11.5.1.3, D 11.5.1.2) fraudulent activities—use of falsehood (D 11.5.1.pr), etc.
Considering the above-mentioned circumstances, the Roman state power came to the conclusion regarding the need to legally regulate gambling. In the Code of Justinian (
There were attempts to regulate gambling even before Justinian. The sources contain an indication regarding a previously existing regulatory act issued by the Roman Senate on the prohibition of gambling for money (D 11.5.2.1). Issues related to gambling were solved by the Roman praetors (see e.g. D 11.5.1.pr., D 11.5.1.3, D 11.5.1.4).
The sources mention the laws from the times of the Roman Republic regarding betting on sports competitions and the legal status of gambling debts (D 11.5.3).
The problems arising from the phenomenon of spread of gambling were addressed by the representatives of the so-called classical jurisprudence (
Thus, we can assume that almost all the time during the historical development of the Ancient Roman state, one or another regime of legal regulation of the gambling phenomenon persisted, or at least some elements of such regulation were employed.