h e r d e a t h . T h e s u p p o s i t i o n t h a t Callicrates c a m e t o E g y p t in h e r c o m p a n y (p. 67) is, in t h e a u t h o r ' s o w n w o r d s , " c o m p l e t e l y in t h e r e a l m of c o n j e c t u r e " — h u t w h a t a n i n t r i g u i n g c o n j e c t u r e i t is! I t s h o u l d b e n o t e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t i n h i s " l o y a l a n d a l m o s t p i o u s s e n t i m e n t s t o w a r d P t o l e m y a n d his s i s t e r - w i f e " Callicrates w a s b y n o m e a n s a n e x c e p t i o n a t t h e A l e x a n d r i a n c o u r t — as t h e r e a d e r m i g h t b e inclined t o b e l i e v e a f t e r r e a d i n g H a u b e n ' s r e m a r k s (p. 66) o n S o t a d e s , w h o , h o w e v e r , w a s a specific case. W h i l e s p e a k i n g of p o e t s , w e m u s t n o t f o r g e t h o w close, f o r i n s t a n c e , w e r e t h e r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n s o m e o n e like C a l i i m a c h u s a n d t h e k i n g a n d his s i s t e r - s p o u s e .
H a u b e n is p r o b a b l y r i g h t a b o u t t h e r a n g e a n d scope of Callicrates' ρ о Avers. F o r I t h i n k w e c a n n o w t a k e it as p r o v e d t h a t h e w a s t h e s u p r e m e c o m m a n d e r of t h e P t o l e m a i c n a v y , a l t h o u g h t h e r e is n o t h i n g t o i n d i c a t e t h a t h e possessed e x t e n s i v e p o l i t i c a l a n d j u d i c i a l p o w e r s , as did t h e p l e n i p o t e n t i a r y g e n e r a l s Philocles a n d P a t r o c l u s , w h o , in H a u b e n ' s o p i n i o n , w e r e n o t n a u a r c h s (p. 69). H a u b e n believes t h a t Callicrates h e l d t h e o f f i c e of n a u a r c h f o r a b o u t 20 y e a r s , b u t t h i s d u r a t i o n is n o t a l t o g e t h e r s u r e , since n e i t h e r t h e b e g i n n i n g n o r t h e e n d of t h i s p e r i o d are d a t e d d e f i n i t e l y . N e v e r t h e l e s s t h e a u t h o r is q u i t e r i g h t i n s a y i n g t h a t T a r n ' s t h e o r y of t h e t e n y e a r s ' d u r a t i o n of t h e n a u a r c h a t e m a y b e d e f i n i t e l y r e j e c t e d (p. 69). A l t h o u g h C h a p t e r I I I , d e a l i n g w i t h Callicrates of S a m o s ' s f a m i l y , e s t a b -lishes l i t t l e t h a t is d e f i n i t e , i t is n e v e r t h e l e s s g o o d t e s t i m o n y t o t h e a u t h o r ' s e x c e l l e n t choice of m e t h o d a n d his c a u t i o n i n a r r i v i n g a t conclusions.
A t t h e v e r y e n d of t h i s b o o k l e t t h e r e is a n a p p e n d i x in w h i c h G i i n t e r D u η s t p r e s e n t s a v e r y f r a g m e n t a r y i n s c r i p t i o n f r o m S a m o s , m e n t i o n i n g Callicrates, s o n of B o i s c u s . I t s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t in C h a p t e r I I H a u b e n h a d s u g g e s t e d
a r a t h e r d i f f e r e n t r e s t o r a t i o n of t h e t e x t ( I I С 5 p . 48/49).
[ W a r s z a w a ] Anna Świderek
J a k o b S e i b e r t , Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Ptolemaios I , Miinchener Beitrage zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte, 56. H e f t , C. H . Beclc, M i i n c h e n 1969.
T h e t i t l e of his w o r k e x a c t l y c o n v e y s t h e a u t h o r ' s a i m , w h i c h is t o e x a m i n e c a r e f u l l y all t h e sources a n d l i t e r a t u r e o n t h e h i s t o r y of P t o l e m y I , u p t o t h e t i m e of t h e B a t t l e of I p s o s (301 B.C.). A p o i n t w h i c h one m i g h t b e i n c l i n e d t o c a v i l a t is his choice of t i m e f r a m e w o r k . O n t h e one h a n d i t is p e r f e c t l y n a t u r a l t h a t t h e a u t h o r s h o u l d b e g i n b y c o n s i d e r i n g t h e p o s i t i o n a n d role of P t o l e m y , son of L a g o s , e v e n as e a r l y as t h e t i m e of A l e x a n d e r ' s e x p e d i t i o n , w h i l e simul-t a n e o u s l y a simul-t simul-t e m p simul-t i n g simul-t o assess h i m as a h i s simul-t o r i a n . U n d o u b simul-t e d l y n o h i s simul-t o r y of
the first Macedonian king of Egypt should neglect the early period of his life. What is less justifiable, however, is his decision to go no further than the Battle of Ipsos. The arguments -which S e i b e r t puts forward for this decision in the Conclusion (Schluss, pp. 235—236) are inadequate. True, there are very few sources connected with the later period, and what sources do exist are not at all easy to make use of. But this is the very reason why I think they should be studied. Nor is this gap filled by the author's reference, in a footnote, to another publication of his (Historische Beiträge zu den dynastischen Verbind-ungen, Historia-Einzelschriften, H. 10, 1967), since it concerns only one aspect of Ptolemy I's diplomatic activities. Then there are quite a number of problems arising after the Battle of Ipsos, which throw important light on Ptolemy's policies, such as his relations with Demetrius Poliorcetes or with Pyrrhus, or the establishment of a protectorate over the Nesiotic League, or the question of Gyrene.
After the year 301 B.C. we never again find Ptolemy on the field of battle. This perhaps explains why S e i b e r t does not go beyond that date, for his main interest is in Ptolemy's strategy (without of course neglecting to study his politics). It is probably also the reason why Cyrene and its connections with Egypt, even in the period 323—301 B.C., has been treated rather perfunctor-ily — which is rather a pity, as it is a problem which illuminates Ptolemy's policy and his attitude to the Greek cities rather well.
Admirable features of S e i b e r t's book are its orderliness and precision. Its construction is exceptionally clear, the various chapters having been divided very conveniently into small sub-sections. First of all the author presents and analyses the sources that are available on the given problem, then he discusses the literature on the subject, and finally states his conclusions and own results. One is everywhere aware of his determination (mostly justified) to question established opinions and cast doubt on the assertions of the universally accepted vulgate. Sometimes, however, he goes too far.
S e i b e r t is probably too hard on Ptolemy judged as a historian, although he convincingly (but perhaps too extensively) criticizes the view put forward by C. B. W e l l e s (p. 7). He himself takes exception to the prominence Ptolemy gives to his own person. Yet surely it was only natural that the memoirs written by the King of Egypt himself should have a somewhat subjective bias. Arrian was able to read all Ptolemy's writings, as well as the works of other historians on the subject of Alexander, so it was easier for him than for us today to assess their value and reliability. Of course if we recognize this fact it does not mean that we should throw all caution to the winds when dealing with the informa-tion given us by Ptolemy.
With regard to the division of the satrapies in Babylon, S e i b e r t subjects to scrutiny the universally held view that Ptolemy chose Egypt for himself. An exhaustive examination of the sources reveals that this view was p r o p o u n d e d
f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e b y J . P . M a h a f f у (Λ History of Egypt under the Ptolemaic Dynasty, 1899, p . 25), a n d i t is n o t s u p p o r t e d b y a n y s o u r c e s ; w h i l e P a u s . I 6 c a n n o t .be r e g a r d e d as a d e q u a t e e v e n f o r r e g a r d i n g P t o l e m y as i n i t i a t o r of t h e v e r y f a c t of d i v i s i o n . I n a c h a p t e r on Cleomenes of N a u c r a t i s , S e i b e r t v e r y r i g h t l y p o i n t s o u t t h a t t h e sources a r e b i a s e d , f o r t h e y e v a l u a t e t h e a c t i o n s of t h i s f i r s t G r e e k g o v e r n o r of E g y p t solely f r o m t h e p o i n t of v i e w of t h e G r e e k s , a n d i g n o r e t h e f a c t t h a t a b o v e all h e h a s t o r e c k o n w i t h t h e n e e d s of t h e whole c o u n t r y h e w a s a d m i n i s t e r i n g . T h a t Cleomenes of N a u c r a t i s Avas a g o o d a d m i n i s t r a t o r is d o c u m e n t e d b y t h e f a c t t h a t P t o l e m y f o u n d 8,000 t a l e n t s in t h e t r e a s u r y ( f r o m D i o d . X V I I I 14,1 h e c o n c l u d e s t h a t P t o l e m y got t h i s m o n e y d u r i n g t h e life-t i m e of Cleomenes, b u life-t i life-t s h o u l d b e n o life-t e d life-t h a life-t D i o d o r u s s a y s n o life-t h i n g a b o u life-t C l e o m e n e s ' s d e a t h , n o r a b o u t his r e l a t i o n s w i t h P t o l e m y ) . T h i s a t t e m p t t o r e h a b i l i t a t e Cleomenes t o s o m e e x t e n t is c e r t a i n l y j u s t i f i e d (cf. also e.g. E . W i l l , Histoire politique du monde hellénistique I , N a n c y 1966, p . 33, 153, 177). O n t h e o t h e r h a n d S e i b e r t p o s s i b l y goes t o o f a r in t r y i n g t o p r o v e t h a t Cleomenes " d i d n o t t r y t o f e a t h e r his o w n n e s t " (p. 50). F o r in t h o s e d a y s , as l o n g as t h i n g s w e r e k e p t w i t h i n c e r t a i n l i m i t s , it w a s t h o u g h t q u i t e n a t u r a l t o l i n k one's o w n i n t e r e s t s w i t h t h o s e of t h e s t a t e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , a n d n o one m a d e a n y ob-j e c t i o n . C o m i n g n o w t o t h e sources f o r t h e h i s t o r y of P t o l e m y I , a n d t o t h e a c c o u n t of P t o l e m y g i v e n in B o o k s X V I I I a n d X I X b y D i o d o r u s , t h e a u t h o r q u i t e n a t u r a l l y p a y s m o s t a t t e n t i o n t o H i e r o n y m u s of C a r d i a . I n t h i s case his con-clusions are i n line w i t h t h e g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d o p i n i o n as t o t h e w o r t h of t h a t h i s t o r i a n , f o r a f t e r c a r e f u l a n d p a i n s t a k i n g a p p r a i s a l of all t h e d a t a , S e i b e r t , t o o , looks u p o n h i m as t h e m a i n s o u r c e of B o o k s X V I I I a n d X I X b y D i o d o r u s . S e i b e r t does n o t t r y t o i d e n t i f y a n y of t h e o t h e r sources u s e d b y D i o d o r u s w i t h a n y of t h e k n o w n h i s t o r i a n s , b u t c a n n i l y c o n f i n e s himself t o m e n t i o n i n g t h e m i n t h e t e x t a n d s a y i n g w h i c h t r e n d t h e y r e p r e s e n t . T h e c h a p t e r d e a l i n g w i t h P t o l e m y ' s f o r e i g n p o l i c y b e g i n s w i t h a n a n a l y s i s of P o l . V 34, 3 — 9 — t h e t e x t on w h i c h o u r i d e a s a b o u t t h e policy of t h e f i r s t t h r e e P t o l e m i e s a r e u s u a l l y b a s e d (cf. Ε . W i l l , op. cit., p . 139). As f a r as m e t h o d is c o n c e r n e d , S e i b e r t is u n d o u b t e d l y r i g h t in s a y i n g t h a t w h a t w e h a v e h e r e is n o m o r e t h a n a n opinion e x p r e s s e d b y one of t h e a n c i e n t h i s t o r i a n s , a n d t h a t n o t his o p i n i o n , b u t t h e s o u r c e m a t e r i a l s h o u l d b e t a k e n as t h e f o u n d a -t i o n f o r f o r m i n g o n e ' s o w n o p i n i o n ( p p . 85/86). I -t is i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e -t o m e , h o w e v e r , w h y S e i b e r t t h i n k s t h i s t e x t b y P o l y b i u s c a n r e f e r o n l y t o t h e r e i g n of P t o l e m y I I I : f o r b o t h Coele-Syria a n d C y p r u s h a d a l r e a d y b e e n t a k e n o v e r l o n g b e f o r e t h i s , b y P t o l e m y I , w h i l e t h e w h o l e p i c t u r e n o d o u b t c o r r e s p o n d s t o t h e s i t u a t i o n i n t h e r e i g n of P t o l e m y I I . S e i b e r t p r o c e e d s t o discuss t h e v i e w s of p r e v i o u s a u t h o r s on t h e f o r e i g n p o l i c y of P t o l e m y I , a n d accuses t h e m of s t a r t i n g off f r o m s o m e a priori a s s u m p t i o n of a g e n e r a l p o l i t i c a l p r i n c i p l e .
I n r e p l y t o this it m a y b e said t h a t in m o s t cases t h e v a r i o u s a u t h o r s ,had ar-rived a t t h e s e "general political principles" t h r o u g h s t u d y i n g t h e sources, a n d t h a t t h e differences t h a t were e v i d e n t in t h e i r views s t e m m e d f r o m t h e possi-bility of diverse s u b j e c t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . S e i b e r t ' s assertion t h a t "die uns b e k a n n t e n Ereignisse sind n i c h t n u r actio, s o n d e r n a u c h r e a c t i o " (p. 88) can b e applied equally well t o t h e politics of e v e r y c o u n t r y a n d e v e r y epoch. I t does n o t , however, rule o u t t h e possibility t h a t a general political line did exist. As f o r t h e question of t h e e x p e d i t i o n t o Cyrenaica, w h i c h s i g n i f i c a n t l y h e calls " P t o l e m y ' s f i r s t m i l i t a r y u n d e r t a k i n g " (p. 91), Seibert seeks t o p r o v e t h a t its aim was n o t t e r r i t o r i a l e x p a n s i o n , n o r c o n f i r m a t i o n of E g y p t ' s p o w e r (cf. t h e opinion o f H . B e n g t s o n q u o t e d in f o o t n o t e 13, p. 95). P t o l e m y only i n t e r v e n e d b e c a u s e he w a s p e r s u a d e d t o do so b y t h e exiles f r o m Cyrene (p. 93). Y e t we k n o w v e r y well t h a t s t a t e s m e n a n d kings only listen t o t h e pleas of exiles w h e n b y r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e m t h e y can t h e r e b y f u r t h e r t h e i r own policy. T h u s t h e v e r y f a c t t h a t P t o l e m y listened t o t h e C y r e n a i c a n s ' pleas is eloquent t e s t i m o n y t o t h e k i n d of p l a n s he was n u r s i n g t o w a r d s t h e l a n d f r o m which t h e exiles h a d come.
T h e sources we h a v e on t h e w a r b e t w e e n Perdiccas a n d P t o l e m y are n o t , as t h e a u t h o r ' s convincing analysis shows, a c o n v e n i e n t s t a r t i n g - p o i n t for t h e o b j e c t i v e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of f a c t s , for t h e y are biased, m o s t l y on t h e side of P t o l e m y . T h e b o o k gives a v e r y lucid a n d interesting analysis of t h e v a r i o u s reasons which are given f o r t h e w a r b y d i f f e r e n t sources (see T a b l e on p. 107). S e i b e r t himself looks u p o n all these reasons as being of no i m p o r t a n c e ; or a t m o s t he r e g a r d s only one of t h e m as being a t all plausible : t h a t is, t h e m u r d e r of Cleomenes. His conclusion is t h a t P t o l e m y himself p r o v o k e d t h e w a r b y e n t e r i n g a coalition w i t h A n t i g o n u s a n d A n t i p a t e r . I n m y opinion, h o w e v e r , h e does n o t a p p r e c i a t e s u f f i c i e n t l y t h e i m p o r t a n c e of t h e a b d u c t i o n of A l e x a n d e r ' s b o d y t o E g y p t , I n suggesting t h a t Perdiccas would n o t h a v e risked w a r o n t w o f r o n t s unless he h a d h a d i m p o r t a n t reasons for doing so (p. I l l ) , he is t h i n k i n g in t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y categories. T h e n h a v i n g a n a l y s e d t h e course of t h e w a r a n d its o u t c o m e , h e comes t o t h e conclusion t h a t P e i t h o n p l a y e d a m u c h m o r e i m p o r t a n t role in t h e s e e v e n t s t h a n h a s b e e n a t t r i b u t e d t o h i m b y sources w h i c h are f a v o u r a b l e t o P t o l e m y . H e even suggests t h a t t h e real position was n o t t h a t t h e s a t r a p of E g y p t v o l u n t a r i l y reliquished t h e p o s t of r e g e n t , b u t t h a t he w a s n o t s t r o n g enough t o seize it. H e also challenges t h e general view t h a t it w a s t h e w a r against Perdiccas t h a t m o u l d e d P t o l e m y ' s l a t e r s t r a t e g y . " D a der K r i e g n i c h t auf d e m S c h l a c h t f e l d , s o n d e r n im Zelt des feindlichen H e e r f ü h r e r s entschieden w u r d e , k o n n t e P t o l e m a i o s f ü r der Z u k u n f t keine s t r a t e g i s c h e Hinweise f ü r die Sicherheit seines L a n d e s g e w i n n e n " (p. 128). To t h i s it m a y be replied t h a t it Avas b e f o r e t h e d e a t h of Perdiccas t h a t P t o l e m y w o n t h i s w a r a n d t h a t victorious generals are n o t u s u a l l y m u r d e r e d b y t h e i r o w n soldiers.
It is here that the main thread of the author's argument becomes apparent: he wants to challenge all the generally accepted views and above all to dem-onstrate that Ptolemy in actual fact did not pursue any systematic policy, to show that was neither such a wise diplomat nor such a far-sighted strat-egist as is usually believed. Since he had no definite aim, declares S e i b e г t, his only purpose was net just to maintain and strengthen his position in Egypt. But in actual fact practically all Ptolemy's moves, both diplomatic and military, can best be interpreted along these lines. S e i b e r t decidedly rejects this inter-pretation, and seeks another one, and since he cannot find oné, he accuses the King of Egypt of being inconsistent and undecided, and denies him both political and military talent. Proof of this he seeks both in the war against Polyperchon
(see pp. 134—135), and, above all, in the war against Antigonus (period 315— 311 B.C.), and sharply criticizes all three members of the coalition mounted against Antigonus. His opinion (p. 140) is based on a single sentence in Dio-dorus ( X I X 75, 2). He forgets that both Cassander and Lysimachus (to say nothing even of Ptolemy) later proved their military and diplomatic talents on repeated occasions. If all three really had been incompetent politicians and generals, Antigonus and Demetrius would have had no difficulty in dealing with them, especially as even S e i b e r t does not deny them those talents (e.g. see p. 141—2). Discussing Ptolemy's strategy in the year 315 B.C., the author accuses him of inactivity even during the operations on Cyprus, although he does not deny a certain logic in those operations (pp. 143—145). What he does allege against him is that he did not make the best use of the preponderance of his fleet, and as an explanation of this fact he suggests that having accom-panied Alexander on his expedition, Ptolemy had no experience in naval war-fare. Strangely enough he does not cite another reason for this inactivity at sea — the formation of the Nesiotic League, by Antigonus, which he dates to this very same year, 315 B.C. (see p. 146). Another criticism that S e i b e r t levels against Ptolemy is that his sole reaction to Antigonus' proclamation of freedom for the Greeks was a similar proclamation (p. 145), but he does not tell us what better move Ptolemy could have made.
With the Battle of Gaza the author initiates a series of precise, admirable military analysis that constitute an important and valuable part of this book. They also spotlight his interest in military history (see also his analysis of the Battle of Salamis on Cyprus, the expedition of Antigonus against Egypt, and the Battle of Ipsus). Seleucus's role at Gaza surprises the author, although it seems quite natural to me that Ptolemy should regard the exiled satrap, whose expulsion from Babylon he had never accepted, as more or less equal to himself in rank. Seleucus's expedition to . Babylon was by no means an undertaking by Ptolemy himself, for he had no intention of annexing that satrapy to Egypt (cf. D г о y s e n's comment, cited by S e i b e r t in footnote 33 on p. 150). The author describes the peace that was concluded in 311 B.C. as an
"indispu-table victory for Antigonus", although he cites no arguments that could con-vince all those which regard this peace rather as a compromise agreement
(cf. footnote 85 on p. 151, which however does not seem to be weighty enough to justify the categorical formulation in the text).
When analysing Ptolemy's policy after the peace of 311, S e i b e r t remains faithful to the line he has adopted. Even when he is compelled to admit that in 310 B.C. the ruler of Egypt shrewdly took advantage of the situation in Cilicia and to approve Ptolemy's strategic manoeuvres, he hastens to add that although Ptolemy proclaimed the freedom of the Greek cities "die Ausdruck-weise Diodors zeigt deutlich, dass man sich wohl schon damals von diesen Worten nicht täuschen liess" (p. 184). It must, however, be remembered that, as the author himself points out, the historian who was Diodorus's main source in Books X V I I I and X I X belonged to Antigonus's camp. This must also be borne in mind when considering the description of the death of Antigonus's nephew (p. 186). Seibert commends Ptolemy's expedition to Greece in 308 B.C. He remarks that Ptolemy grasped the opportunity when it was ripe, and yet was cautious enough to withdraw before it was too late. But here too he adds that "vom propagandischen Standpunkt war ... das Unternehmen gescheitert", since the ruler's "Befreiungspolitik" inspired less and less confidence (p. 189). The Battle of Salamis on Cyprus also provides another occasion for sharp criticism of Ptolemy, and especially his behaviour after the battle (pp. 202— 203). I am not in a position to say whether this judgement of Ptolemy's military talents was right or wrong, but it seems to me a telling point that S e i b e i t is equally severe on Antigonus for his unsuccessful expedition to Egypt (p. 222), while he emphasizes the diplomatic agility of Ptolemy there (p. 216). It is no doubt true that defeats are generally at least partially the outcome of errors committed by the generals, even if sometimes these generals may be geniuses. So the errors that Ptolemy committed at Salamis are insufficient grounds for denying his worth as a general.
Antigonus's expedition to Egypt inevitably calls for comparison with that of Perdiccas. Ptolemy's strategy in both wars was identical. Does this not prove — despite S e i b e r t's conclusions — the very consistency of that policy ?
The author seems on the whole to be on the right lines in adhering to Dio-dorus's text and in rejecting the amendments accepted by most scholars ( X X 18,4 see p. 179; X X 19,2 see p. 178; X I X 57, 1; 57,4; 60,2 see p. 1 9 7 f f — b u t see also E. Will, op. cit., p. 49).
Lack of space prevents us from mentioning all the convincing conclusions reached by the author on certain more detailed matters, nor other statements for which he can be taken to task. For instance, despite what S e i b e i t says on p. 8, the Ptolemy mentioned in Arrian III 18,9 is surely the son of Lagos, as is indicated by the absence of the patronymic. Then Ptolemy's interest in Syria does not seem today to call for any other explanation than that generally
given by the historians. For to say that every strong Egyptian government aimed at dominating Syria does not mean at all that Ptolemy deliberately and consciously imitated his predecessors (this was understood very well by B o u c h é - L e c l e r q , see the text quoted on p. 134). When discussing Antigonus's unfortunate expedition to Egypt, the author argues the exact meaning of Diodorus's words about the Pleiades ( X X 74,1). He rightly rejects the old translation by W u r m , but wrongly rejects G e e r 's translation
(p. 212). For "Das Siebengestirn erfasste sie" means the same as the more comprehensible version by the latter translator: "the setting of the Pleiades overtook them". It seems neither correct nor necessary to introduce here the question of "superstition" (Aberglaube), for after all Seibert himself admits that after the setting of the Pleiades sailing was dangerous, and on the whole no one risked it because of the winter winds (p. 210).
These remarks or criticisms are by no means intended to belittle the value of this book, which is an impressive and most useful disquisition. Even where the author is not always convincing, he invariably supplies a wealth of material on which the reader can base his own conclusions.
[Warszawa] Anna Świderek
Jean G a u d e m e t, Institutions de l'Antiquité, Paris, Sirey, 1967, pp. X I X + +909, 11 planches et 8 cartes hors texte.
Dans l'avant-propos de son manuel d'histoire des institutions de l'Antiquité (pp. V-YI) l'auteur déclare que ce livre «ne s'est pas tenu pour lié strictement par les programmes universitaires français» et qu'il «souhaiterait pouvoir rendre quelque service à ceux qui, en France ou à l'étranger, s'intereseant aux insti-tutions politiques, juridiques et sociales de l'Antiquité, sans être les esclaves des programmes scolaires». C'est pourquoi le manuel en question est en réalité une synthèse de l'histoire du droit et des institutions de l'Antiquité. Il se divise en trois livres: I. Traditions orientales (pp. 1—124); II. La Grèce (pp. 125— 150); III. Rome (pp. 250—810), suivis de six tableaux chronologiques (pp. 811—826), une liste des empereurs romains (pp. 827—828), un index alpha-bétique (pp. 829—845), un index des sources (pp. 847—887), une table des matières (pp. 891—909) et huit cartes géographiques hors texte. Une biblio-graphie générale et un index des abréviations se trouvent aux pages XII—-X I XII—-X .
Ayant en vue que ce manuel a été déjà le sujet d'un compte-rendu détaillé de M. J. M o d r z e j e w s k i (cf. RIDA XV/1968, pp. 498—504) ainsi qu'étant
