N O T E S
E R L A N G E N D I S S E R T A T I O N S
P r o f . E r i c h S e i d l was so k i n d t o send us a r e p o r t a b o u t f o u r E r l a n g e n - D i s s e r t a t i o n s accomplished in his papyrological semi-n a r . These a r e :
1. E n g e l b e r t N i e b i e r , Die Aufrechnung im ptolemäischen Rechte ( C o m p e n s a t i o n in P t o l e m a i c L a w ) , 1948.
T h e a u t h o r has accepted t h e view — in so f a r t h e m e t h o d of in-v e s t i g a t i o n is concerned — t h a t historic a n d juristic i n in-v e s t i g a t i o n m u s t be b a s e d on connection of cause a n d effect. H e investigates—• according t o t h a t principle — t h e law suit for m u t u a l c o m p e n s a t i o n as it a p p e a r s in ancient a n d several m o d e r n legislations. S u p -posing t h a t a claim of one p a r t y t o receive a c e r t a i n a m o u n t of good capable of being s u b s t i t u t e d , is opposed b y t h e claim of t h e opposite p a r t y t o receive a n o t h e r a m o u n t of t h e same goods, t h e n t h e case can be resolved b y law in d i f f e r e n t w a y s . One legislation can declare: Ipso iure compensatur; t h e other one can decide t h a t one p a r t y a t least h a s t o declare her will t o c o m p e n s a t e , a n d t h a t in such a case t h e claims of b o t h p a r t i e s b e c o m e p a r t l y e x t i n c t , in so f a r n a m e l y as t h e claim a n d counter-claim are equal. B u t t h e L a w can j u s t as well a s s u m e a t o t a l l y passive a t t i t u d e , a n d m u s t n o t pro-vide a n y t h i n g a t all for a c o m p e n s a t i o n a n d its consequences. I n this case b o t h parties m u s t explicitly p r o v i d e for t h e possibility of a m u t u a l c o m p e n s a t i o n a n d p r o v i d e for it a t t h e m o m e n t of t h e conclusion of t h e obligation. B a s e d on B G U 1265 D r N i e b l e r explains (and he is right) t h a t we h a v e t o a s s u m e t h a t t h i r d al-t e r n a al-t i v e as f a r as P al-t o l e m a i c law is concerned. P al-t o l e m a i c docu-m e n t s q u o t e d b y h i docu-m seedocu-m t o p r o v e his assertions. His opinion seems t o be easily c o m p a t i b l e w i t h S e i d l ' s view concerning t h e e x p i r a t i o n of a n obligation according t o P t o l e m a i c law, p r e s e n t e d b y h i m in Studi in onore di Siro Solazzi, Napoli 1948, p p 197 ff. D r N i e b l e r investigates also carefully, if i t is n o t necessary t o a m e n d p a r t i a l l y t h e views of P r e i s i g k e a b o u t t h e existence of a vivid clearing house business in P t o l e m a i c E g y p t . W e h a v e t o o
206 JOURNAL OF PAPYROLOGY
to modify the opinions of B e a u c h e t concerning the application of the principle of mutual compensation in Athenian law. On the contrary we find that the views of B i o n d i concerning the development of the principle of the mutual compensation in Roman law are perfectly compatible with Niebler's conclusions.
2. Heinz Friedrich Karl H ü b ner, Der Praefecłus Aegypti von Diokletian bis zum Ende der römischen Herrschaft, 1948.
R e i n m u t h ' s book The Prefect of Egypt from Augustus to Dio-cletian, Leipzig 1935, is since a long time an indispensable source of consultation. Dr Hüb ner tries to study the same subject in a later period. It is obvious that a most close loaning to the model was desiderable and a matter of course. The author has investi-gated an extraordinarily rich material; he has given a list of pre-fects essentially longer than that given by Cantarelli, and has created a reliable manual for all papyrologists, analogous to Rein-muth's manual.
3. Otto Arndt G l o s s n e r : Der Gebietsstreit zwischen Itanos und Hierapytna auf Kreta im 2 Jahrhundert a. Chr. п., 1948.
The works of P a r t s c h and K ä s e r about the theory of the Roman interdict consider the inscriptions Ditt. Syll.3 685 and S.E.G.
II 511 to be important proofs for their views. It was necessary to give a detailed commentary for each line of those inscriptions; a commentary dealing with all historic and juridical questions connected with the texts. The author has resolved this task, and I think in a satisfactory way. His work is connected with papyro-logy because the author gives a detailed explanation of each frag-ment of the inscriptions on the basis of Greek or Roman law.
4. Herwald S c h m i d t , Der Einfluss der Rhetorik auf das Recht der Papyri Aegyptens. Diss. Erlangen 1949.
The author has investigated thoroughly the works of S t r o u x and Y o l k m an η about the construction of the plaidoyer before court. He applied to his study the rules established by the ancient rhetoricians, and he obtained new possibilities for the interpre-tation and understanding of the speeches of the advocates preser-ved in the papyri. It is true that the material contained in the pa-pyri is not very rich indeed, but it is sufficient to prove that the rules established by the rhetoricians were known and applied. The author shows us further the influence exercised on the courts by the rhetoricians. The dissertation proves the influence of rhetoric to have been a real one during all the succcessive periods. It
refu-NOTES. ERLANGEN DISSERTATIONS 207 tes the thesis that rhetoric exercised an influence upon law either in the preclassic period only, or only in the Byzantine period, or in both of these periods, but not in the periods between them. (This theory is represented by G r o s s o , Atti del V Congresso Naz. di Studi Rom., Vol. V). The dissertation delivers a proof that rhetoric was — besides imperial, popular and autonomous provincial law — a source of law in Roman Egypt. But of course it can be considered only as a modest source of law compared with the three above mentio-ned sources.
R. T.
The survey of the non-juristic literature and publications by G. M a n t e u f f e l will appear in the next issue.
