The Cambridge Comparative History of Ancient Law is a wonderful book. Its very great strengths derive from its unusual history of composition, and the book is at its best when, in one way or another, writers actualize the volume's aspirations most sharply. It is never less than exciting and informative, and the patient collaboration among experts in different fields to which it testifies should be a model for future projects of this kind.
The Comparative History aspires to place ʻNear Eastern, Hellenistic, Greek, Egyptian, Roman, Chinese and Indian source material in conversation with each other’ (xi). To achieve this, the editors assembled teams in ‘roughly’ five working groups: Near Eastern (including Egypt, sometimes, which was also Greek, sometimes, and Roman, sometimes); Greek (including Hellenistic, sort of); Roman; ʻspecialists in ancient “Chinese” material’; and ʻspecialists in ancient “Indian” sources’ (xii). The categories are not tidy. In practice, the Ancient Near East is sometimes represented by Babylonian material and sometimes by Old Testament Hebrew sources. Rabbinic law is treated nearly exclusively in Chapter 6, ʻLaw and Religion’, which seems not only a kind of caricature but also a neglect of recent efforts to describe the Rabbinic project as that of articulating a ʻcivil law’ for the Jews.
To read the full review, please click here. Online access is free for members of the European Society for Comparative Legal History. For further information about the volume on our blog, please visit here
No comments:
Post a Comment