REVIEWS
| Date | 01 June 1937 |
| Published date | 01 June 1937 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1937.tb00010.x |
MODERN LAW REVIEW
June,
1937
REVIEWS
PEI#cIpLES
OF
ROMAN
LAW.
By
FRITZ
SCHULTZ. Oxford
:
Clarendon
Press,
1936.
xvi
and
268
pp.
Us.
6d.
ROMAN
LAW
AND
CODIMON
LAW.
By
W.
W.
BUCKLAND and
A.
D.
MCNAIR. Cambridge University Press, 1936. xviii and
353
pp.
Ilk.
One
may
not agree with Professor Schultz when he says that “the
sourcee, for ascertaining the fundamental views and modes of thought of
the Roman lawgivers
are
crystal clear,” but one cannot fail to be stimulated
by his attempt to formulate what he conceives those views and modes to
be.
He
is
interested in law, not
as
a
separate science, but
as
a
social
institution, and the principles which he outlines are principles, not merely
of the Roman legal system, but of Roman life and character
as
a
whole.
He shows the practical way in which these principles mitigated in classical
times the apparent severity of legal rules and gives the reader an insight
into the circumstances in which those rules operated. A glance
at
the list
of passages cited will give some idea of the variety of evidence upon which
he
bases
his conclusions. Professor Buckland and Professor McNair have
a
different object in view, for they present
a
brief comparison of the leading
rules in Roman Law and Common
Law.
But incidentally they touch on
many points dealt with by Professor Schultz, and there
is
a
close resem-
blance between the conclusions arrived
at
in both books, especially those
dealing with the outlook of the classical Roman lawyers.
It
is.true that
there
is
a
difference of emphasis. Professor Schultz is concerned to indicate
their dislike of Statute
Law,
their casuistic method of developing the lam,
the way they ignore public and administrative law, while Professor Buck-
!and and Professor McNair stress the similarity
of
their outlook with that
of the Common lawyers. But each book is, in
a
way, the complement
of
the other, and they should
be
read together.
Neither book will be very easy for students to use.
To
get the most out
of Professor Schultz’s work the reader must be acquainted in some detail
with Roman history and literature. For instance, in the chapter
on
“Authority,” he must understand the constitutional position in the Early
Principate if he is to grasp what is meant by the
auctoritas
of Augustus.
Professor Buckland and Professor McXair cover such
a
wide field of law
that the treatment
of
each subject is necessarily brief; theories of posses-
sion, for example, are dealt with in little more than
a
page. One must
come to this book with
a
fairly comprehensive knowledge of Roman Law
and Common Law if one is to appreciate properly the comparisons and
distinctions which are
so
brilliantly drawn. But the properly equipped
reader will find both books exciting in that they enable him to view familiar
material from
a
new angle.
A
word
of
praise must be given to the translator of Professor Schultz’s
book. One would never suspect that it had been written originally in
another language.
I.
W.
LOGAN.
DRQXT,
MORALE,
MOEURS.
IIe
Annuaim
de
1’Inrrtitat
Inte~rnational
de
Philamphie
du
Ddt
et
de
Sooiologie
JMque.
Rapports
de
:
MM.
G.
DEL VECCHIO,
W.
SAUER,
L. LE
FUR,
H.
KLLSEN,
A.
GOODHART.
To continue reading
Request your trial