REVIEW OF BOOKS 335 d'Antonia fille de Claude administrée par kuriakos logos que P. С оЧ 1 a r t interprète dans son commentaire comme une variation usiakos logos ; il ne peut être question de considérer cette terre comme privée. Le second document, le P. Mich. VI 397, atteste un paiement pour la terre katoikos située sur le terrain de Kerkesoucha par des habitants de Karanis (Kerkesouchon katoikon dia ton apo Karanidos). Il s'agit dans ce cas sans aucun doute de la terre privée, mais la formule dia ton apo a ici une signification bien plus générale et elle n'est pas limitée à Vepi-merismos. L'éditeur l'a très bien dit dans son commentaire: «the expression dia ton apo plus the name of village is well known in connection with epimerismos but in the present passage it implies an obligation assumed with respect to catoecic land at Kerkesoucha exploited by possessors of catoecic land at Karanis»
[Warszawa] Hanna Geremek
Max K ä s e r , Das römische Zivilprozessrecht, pp. X X I V + 570. С. H. Beclc'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
The law of civil procedure dealt with in this volume, concludes the exposi-tion of Roman civil law. Exactly 100 years earlier, studies of this type and this rank had been made by M. A. von B e t h m a n n - H o l l w e g . Since that time, investigations of Roman civil procedure have been undertaken by several generations of scientists : K e l l e r and B e c k e r , W e n g e r and S t e i n w e n t e r , B e r t o l i n i and C o s t a , B e t t i and P u g l i e s e , G i -r a -r d , C o l l i n e t and L e v y - B -r u h l , . B -r o g g i n i and J a h -r , to mention a few of them. However, first place among this host of researchers takes Moriz W 1 a s s а к who by his fifty years (1889—1939) of unremitting inves-tigations created in his numerous monographs and treatises the foundation of modern science about Roman civil procedure.
Max К a s e r' s work represents a scrupulous and comprehensive survey of all these studies extending over a full century. This author spared no effort to extract from the flood of literature what today is looked upon as certain, and to separate it from what is probable or possible. K a s e r ' s synthesis, marking the boundaries of our recognition of the forms and the mechanism ruling in civil procedure, points out the shortcomings of research on a variety of prob-lems of a both general and specific nature. In this domain, much like iu the work: Das römische Privatrecht, Kaser's book is bound to fill for many years to come the function of inspiring the present and many future generations of Romanists towards further scientific investigations.
However, K a s e i ' s Römisches Zivilprozessrecht brings not only a synthesis of today's knowledge of Roman civil procedure, in the first place it presents the author's own reconstruction and vision. It represents the result of long years of dealings with source material and literature, the outcome of innumerable stu-dies of monographs, the issue of deep meditation and mature thinking. Apart from legal forms and legal norms, the author visualizes the complicated mecha-nism of social, economic and political conditions which determined them. He perceives the particular institutions of civil procedure in their profound histo-rical perspective: the way they originated, lasted, and vanished. Faithful to
336 H. KUPISZEWSKI
t h e notion of a «historical reconstruction of R o m a n law in which he has been co-operating, t h e a u t h o r a b a n d o n e d t h e . t r a d i t i o n a l t r e n d of presenting t h e histo-r y of R o m a n civil phisto-roceduhisto-re in t h histo-r e e p a histo-r t s . H e felt sufficiently justified t o deal w i t h cognitive procedure separately for t h e period of t h e Principáte and, sepa-r a t e l y , fosepa-r t h e pesepa-riod of absolute m o n a sepa-r c h y .
As f a r as his source m a t e r i a l is concerned, t h e a u t h o r t o o k into consideration inscriptions and p a p y r i only in so f a r as t h e y m a y be useful t o reconstructing R o m a n civil procedure. We are anxious t o call special a t t e n t i o n of readers of our Journal t o this m a t t e r .
[Warszawa] Henryk К upisze w ski
Мах К a s e r, Das romische Privatrecht. E r s t e r A b s c h n i t t : Das altromische, das vorklassische und klassische Recht. Zweite n e u b e a r b e i t e t e Auflage. p p . X X X
-{-833. С. H . Beck'sche Y e r l a g s b u c h h a n d l u n g . Munchen 1971.
T h e first edition of this book a p p e a r e d in 1955. R . T a u b e n s c h l a g (JJP 9/10 p. 484 f.) c o m m e n t e d on its high i m p o r t a n c e for juristic papyrology.
T h e second edition has been completely r e w r i t t e n . T a k e n into account h a v e been t h e yield of R o m a n i s t research accrued during t h e 16 years since t h e first edition was published. F r o m a meritorious point of view it seems ap-p r o ap-p r i a t e t o call a t t e n t i o n t o t h e following s u b j e c t - m a t t e r .
T h e a u t h o r is a d h e r e n t of t h e t r e n d assigning t o t h e works of classical jurisprudence, t r a n s m i t t e d b y t h e J u s t i n i a n compilation, a higher degree of a u t h e n t i c i t y t h a n used t o be t h e rule u p t o t h e n . H e proclaimed t h e theoretical vindication of his a t t i t u d e t o t e x t s of clasical scholars for t h e first t i m e a t t h e congress of Societa I t a l i a n a di Storia del Diritto, held a t Venice in 1967 (cf. Atti del Congresso Intern. La critica del testo, p. 291 ff.), a n d a f t e r w a r d s in his m o n o g r a p h : Zur Methodologie der romischen Rechtsquellenforschung (Wien 1972). H e restricts t h e range of interpolations a n d elaborations of t e x t s t o such he considers rationally justified. I n consequence t h e a u t h o r vindicates t o classical R o m a n law m a n y legal opinions, notions a n d p h e n o m e n a heretofore ascribed t o E a s t - R o m a n lawschools or t o J u s t i n i a n ' s compilers. H e also p a y s more at-t e n at-t i o n at-t o conat-troversies in opinions held b y jurisat-ts of at-t h e classical period.