Diachronically, the principle of utilitas has held a complex and ambivalent position in the study of Roman jurisprudence. As viewed by several contemporary legal historians, it represents expediency, public benefit and pragmatic adaptability. In this book, K.-C. has expanded and carefully re-worked her doctoral thesis at the University of Łódź, with the aim of recovering the interpretative function of utilitas within the technical discourse of the classical jurists. Methodologically speaking, she interweaves philological, rhetorical and legal approaches. As a result, she offers a fresh reading of the term: a key hermeneutic value instead of a mere practical consideration.
The introductory chapter positions utilitas within the semantic and conceptual context of Roman thought. Before turning to its legal usage, K.-C. examines the etymology of the term (from uti), considering its philosophical and literary significance in Cicero and Horace. The contrast between utile and honestum in moral philosophy provides the ground for interpreting the jurists’ nuanced pragmatic and ethical reasoning. K.-C. contends that the Roman jurists did not simply invoke utilitas as a pretext for convenience, but rather as a normative compass that reconciles ars iuris, aequum and bonum.
Chapter 1, ‘Terminological and Axiological Aspects’, establishes the methodological framework and delineates the sources for analysis. K.-C. highlights several meanings of the word utilitas and its variations across an extensive historical spectrum, between the late Republic and the Severan age. She observes that, although utilitas publica and utilitas singulorum are often juxtaposed, they constitute a dynamic duo whose interaction underlies many interpretative solutions in the Digest. Numerous textual references and quantitative data on the frequency of the term within the juristic corpus buttress the analysis.
In Chapter 2, ‘Utilitas as a Guideline for Legal Interpretation’, the emphasis shifts from terminology to application. K.-C. convincingly illustrates that utilitas was employed by the jurists not only to justify exceptional rules, but also to guide ordinary interpretative reasoning. The chapter contrasts the orator’s and the jurist’s perspectives on utilitas, i.e. Cicero’s rhetorical concept of expediency and the jurists’ hermeneutic interpretation of the term, and explores the conflict between collective and individual benefit. Particularly enlightening is the discussion of cases where utilitas rei publicae is weighed against private interest. It reveals that the jurists did not view this relationship through the lens of a moral hierarchy; they perceived it as an interpretative equilibrium.
Chapter 3, ‘Utilitatis causa Interpretation’, forms the analytical core of the volume. K.-C. investigates the renowned maxim ex utilitate non ex scriptione interpretari oportet and its cognate expressions, analysing how jurists balanced textual fidelity with pragmatic justice. Through a meticulous analysis of fragments by Ulpian, Paulus and Gaius she demonstrates the elasticity of juristic interpretation and its teleological focus. K.-C. organises the examples into three broad categories: normative, linguistic and purposeful deviations from the literal text. She also discusses how utilitas affects the development of ius singulare. The inclusion of statistical tables detailing the distribution of utilitas in the Digest adds a welcome empirical dimension and reflects K.-C.’s meticulous handling of the sources.
The concluding chapter synthesises the findings and revisits the interpretative principles derived from the analysis. For K.-C. utilitas emerges as a cohesive idea in Roman legal hermeneutics: a pragmatic-teleological standard that harmonises interpretative flexibility with the need for legal certainty. By reassessing the role of utilitas across textual layers, K.-C. argues that Roman jurists operated with an implicit hierarchy of interpretative objectives, in which usefulness served both as a criterion and as a constraint. The work thus contributes to a larger reassessment of Roman legal reasoning as practical philosophy rather than mere casuistry.
The book displays considerable strengths. Most importantly, it is distinguished by exhaustive documentation and an impressive precision of reasoning. K.-C.’s control of both primary and secondary materials is impressive, enumerating Latin sources and modern scholarship in several languages, particularly German, Italian, French and anglophone studies. The structure of the argument is clear, the language concise and technical. Particularly commendable is the integration of rhetorical theory into the discussion: Cicero’s Topica and De inventione function less as decorative parallels; instead, they are conceptual tools for elucidating the jurists’ interpretative strategies.
As regards ars iuris, it would be worth considering Aristotle’s contribution, notably the Nicomachean Ethics, and drawing a precise parallel between ars and scientia. The relevance of Aristotle is further underscored by the emergence of the concept of technē; as emphasised by Zeno, technē is central to the intellectual foundation of Roman jurisprudence.
While K.-C. frequently cites W. Waldstein’s works in the analysis of key concepts, his study ‘Entscheidungsgrundlagen der klassischen römischen Juristen’ (ANRW II.15 [1976], 3–100) is not mentioned. This omission is somewhat surprising, since that contribution provides an enriching discussion of the opening texts of the Digesta.
The volume also benefits from a cautious methodological stance. K.-C. avoids anachronism and refrains from projecting contemporary utilitarian ideals onto ancient jurisprudence. Instead, she reconstructs the jurists’ own understanding of utilitas via inductive textual analysis. Her quantitative tables, while sometimes complex, provide a helpful semantic overview of the term. Equally valuable is the attention given to the pragmatic context of the jurists’ activity: the responsa, the edictal framework and the dialectical method of reasoning.
The textual analyses accurately represent the jurists’ perspectives. The interpretations are consistently anchored in philology, in alignment with K.-C.’s articulated objectives. The survey of scholarship and the engagement with divergent views are executed with academic rigour and accuracy. However, in certain instances, it would have been beneficial to conduct a comprehensive exegesis: reconstructing, when feasible, the particular case, question or issue that prompted a particular responsum. As a positive example, the third central section devoted to textual analysis succeeds in delineating the possible semantic fields of utilitas and its derivatives; the selected passages effectively substantiate K.-C.’s arguments and interpretative approach.
While the methodological boundaries of the book are clearly defined, they necessarily exclude certain comparative perspectives. Within these self-imposed limits, the analysis remains coherent and focused. Future research could profitably extend the inquiry by exploring the Greek philosophical and rhetorical background of utilitas more comprehensively, especially the intersections between Aristotelian concepts and Roman interpretations of usefulness. Such comparative work would complement the achievements of the present study and further highlight the mutual influence between Greek ethics and Roman jurisprudence.
The appendix with tables and diagrams outlines a methodological approach that Roman legal studies as well as classical scholarship could adopt to draw closer to the natural sciences. By employing this quantitative and visual method K.-C. offers an instructive potential tool.
To sum up, the volume is a carefully argued and rigorously documented contribution to the study of Roman legal thought. By demonstrating that utilitas was not a mere rhetorical ornament but a substantive interpretative principle, K.-C. enhances the comprehension of the jurists’ reasoning and of the intellectual coherence of Roman jurisprudence. Scholars of Roman law, legal philosophy and classical rhetoric will find the book essential. It also opens new perspectives on the interplay between textual interpretation and practical utility in ancient legal culture.
