capture Quatre Bras? Possibly not-rather, orders to keep his men together and vigorously to drive the enemy along the Charleroi-Brussels road. We may suppose then, it was for not doing this and thus not gaining the advantages-among them Quatre Bras-consequent on such an operation that Napoleon blamed Ney, enabling Grouchy to form an idea, though an erroneous one, of the exact terms of the order. Such a theory seems admissible, and if it is, it makes Grouchy's testimony on the Quartre Bras question unconvincing. Ney's action on the morning of the 16th is severely criticized by Mr. Ropes, and. perhaps rightly. Nevertheless Ney's order to Reille and D'Erlon cannot be used to prove him disobedient to Soult's second and peremptory message to seize Quatre Bras, for the Reille-D' Erlon order must have been forwarded, before the message came. Furthermore it is hard to see why, if Napoleon might have expected Ney to be ready by eleven o'clock to march on Quatre Bras from Frasnes, he should not have had his own army at Fleurus ready to move upon his arrival there, also at eleven. But Napoleon's army did not reach Fleurus until two hours after he himself appeared. Certainly it is not fair to expect more of the servant than of the master. On this point Mr. Ropes's earlier judgment' is more just. HENRY E. BOURNE. Paris, Des Classes Ouvrières à Rome. Par A. Typaldo-Bassia. Chevalier-Marescq & Cie, 1892. (Ouvrage couronné par l'Académie de Législation de Toulouse)-8vo, 150 pp. This Essay proposes to trace the history of the working classes of Rome. (Cf. pp. 1, 139.) Its method is not, however, historical but topical. It treats in turn of the workmen employed by the state (Chap. I), of the free workmen outside the colleges (Chap. II), of slave labor (Chap. III), of the colleges of free workmen (Chap. IV), and finally of state control of labor (Chap. V). It is perhaps to this arrangement of matter that we are to trace a confusion which seriously injures the value of the essay. It is clear, both from explicit statements and from the sources quoted, that the author regards his theme as covering the whole history of the working classes at Rome. Practically, however, most of what he has to say applies only to the period of state control under the later Empire. Had he restricted himself to this topic. from the start, his division of matter, while perhaps open to 1 Scribner's Magazine, March, April, 1888. state. criticism, might still have been defended. But from the point of view actually adopted such a division can only be misleading. As the second section under Chapter I, he treats of the great colleges used in providing food for the City of Rome, and draws a dismal picture of their condition under the iron control of the But these great colleges, unlike the workmen in the Imperial factories, began as free corporations. They differed from other colleges only in that the particular services which they rendered were more important to the State. The process by which they lost their independence and became bound to the state can only be understood if treated in connection with the college organization in general; but this topic is not introduced in the Essay till page 52. This is the more remarkable, as the Metallarii, who were strictly bound to the service of the state, and whose lot was much more severe than that of the Navicularii and Pistores, are treated,—so far as they are treated at all,—on page 89, under the head of the free colleges. The subject of the free colleges properly receives the fullest treatment. The organization and legal status of the colleges are dealt with at considerable length. It is perhaps only natural that the legal aspect of the subject should have special interest for one who is himself Docteur du droit. But the questions of organization, of property rights, and of legal representation, while interesting, do not touch the most important point connected with these colleges. What was their precise place in the economic system? How far did they use the new privileges gained by their members to better their condition as workmen? These questions our author nowhere raises. That they had some such function his comparison with the later gilds seems to assume. On page 20, in speaking of the independent workmen, he says in so many words: "Les corporations ôtaient le travail de l'artisan isolé la multiplicité de leurs clients, la rapidité de leur maind'oeuvre, et la quantité de leurs produits quotidiens étaient tout autant de causes de nature à entrainer la livraison à meilleur marché." But that is the very question at issue. All that we know of the college organization points to social rather than to economic aims. Prof. Liebenam, whose book "Zur Geschichte und Organization des Römischen Vereinswesens" is to-day the best authority on this complicated subject, writes as follows: "Keine Andeutung berechtigt zu der Annahme dass ein gemeinsamer Betrieb des Gewerbes, die Ausübung des Berufes nach vorgeschriebenen Satzungen erfolgen musste, oder dass die Genos senschaft, wie die deutschen Zünfte, welche Unredliche ausschlossen, Aufsicht über gute Ausführung des Gewerbes seitens der Berufsgenossen übte" (p. 257.) M. Typaldo-Bassia has given us no facts which would lead us to modify this opinion. Of course, under the Empire of the third and still more of the fourth centuries, we find the colleges an important factor in the regulation of industry by the state. The legislation of Alexander Severus and his successors transformed the clubs from social gatherings of workmen to fixed institutions under state control. No more interesting subject for investigation could be found than the details of this relationship, so far as it affected those colleges which stood outside the immediate service of the state. But the author contributes nothing to our knowledge of this relationship. It is true that he has a chapter on the control of industry by the state, but this confines itself to an account of the celebrated attempt of Diocletian to regulate prices. The subject of taxation, though the key to the whole matter, is barely referred to. It is characteristic of the author's method that, after describing at length the legal status of the colleges, as we find them in the second and third centuries, he returns, in his section on the political rôle of the corporations, to the old colleges of the Republic, of the organization and history of which we know nothing. M. Typaldo-Bassia is apparently unfamiliar with the recent German literature on his subject. It is to be regretted that the work of Liebenam's already referred to did not fall into his hands before the publication of his essay. It might have saved him from some of the errors which we have been obliged to criticize. What we need now is not treatises on the history of the working classes in general, but such careful and detailed studies of special fields, as shall make it possible in time to come for an exhaustive treatise to be written. WM. ADAMS BROWN. Aristotle's Constitution of Athens: A revised text with an introduction, critical and explanatory notes, testimonia, and indices. By John Edwin Sandys, Litt.D., etc. London and New York, Macmillan & Co., 1893.-8vo, lxxx, 302 pp. This is at present beyond comparison the best edition in which to study the work whose recovery and first publication in January of 1891 aroused so much interest. The superiority of the edition lies in the fulness and excellence of its explanatory and illustrative apparatus. If the bulk of the comment seems out of proportion to that of the text, one must bear in mind the character of the text, which briefly summarizes several centuries of constitutional history together with the entire legal system of the author's own time, and gives rise to a variety of questions by reason of the relation between Aristotle and other writers on the subject. An introduction of sixty-eight pages gives first a brief account of the earlier political literature of Greece, and of the political works ascribed to Aristotle, next a valuable summary of the ancient and modern literature on the authorship of the Пoλтeîai; then the Berlin fragments and the British Museum papyrus of the present work are described. The following fifteen pages contain a judicious examination of the date and authorship of this treatise, an examination that issues in quoting with approval the conclusion of Professor J. H. Wright of Harvard "that it was written mainly by Aristotle, with perhaps the help of a pupil who prepared certain of the less important passages; the work was then revised, but not rewritten by him." When one considers the overwhelming preponderance of scholarly opinion in favor of Aristotelian authorship, especially if the votes be not merely counted but weighed, it might seem unnecessary to give so much space to further discussion of the question. But it is in England more than elsewhere that skeptical voices have been heard, and Dr. Sandys did well to answer them with considerable fulness. Archæologists are accustomed to judging of newly recovered works of sculpture in a mutilated condition; but such finds in the domain of literature are less common, and therefore less easy to estimate rightly. Those who in the first months of 1891 declared themselves unable to accept the work as Aristotle's have not since then been reënforced by a single new voice. Dr. Sandys's introduction closes with an abstract of the treatise and a conspectus of the literature upon it. As regards the text itself it is most interesting to observe the progress that has been made, by the united labors of scholars in many lands, in filling the gaps that Mr. Kenyon was forced to leave in his editio princeps. The present edition suffers from one unavoidable consequence of its elaborate character. Such a book requires a long time for printing; several important contributions to the subject appeared before it was published, which were yet too late for notice by the editor except in the addenda. For example, in Fleckeisen's Jahrbücher for October 1892, were published the new readings won by the keen and practiced eyes of Blass from his inspection of the original papyrus, Blass being the first continental scholar to collate the original. A few of these readings may call for renewed examination; but many of them fill lacunae most convincingly, others give acceptable corrections. Some of Dr. Sandys's emendations and notes are made unnecessary thereby ; yet it was too late to do more than record the readings in the addenda without comment. The most valuable feature of the edition are the abundant citations of parallel or supplementary passages from a great variety of sources, including many inscrip The most important of these quotations are printed in full, so that on not a few disputed points the reader has before him in a single volume a sufficient basis on which to form an independent judgment. The effectiveness of this method of illustration is clearly seen in the citations from Aristotle's Politics. An unprejudiced reader cannot fail to be struck with the frequent parallelism in phraseology, and no less in the judgments expressed, in the two works. Another valuable feature is the Greek index, which is complete, except for quite unimportant words like kaί and dé. Misprints are not numerous and are rarely misleading; they are mostly in misplaced Greek accents and in the German quotations. This is not the place to discuss in detail either text or interpretation; but two matters of some general interest may be touched upon. In ch. 3. 3 the MS. has w's èì TOÚTOV TS Baoiλeías παραχωρησάντων τῶν Κοδ[ριδων] ἀντὶ τῶν δοθεισῶν τῷ ἄρχοντι Swpewv. Mr. Kenyon had remarked upon the passage: "The expression is somewhat remarkable, but the meaning is clear; in his reign the Codridae retired from the kingship in consideration of the prerogatives which were surrendered to the Archon. Certain prerogatives were transferred to the Archon, and to that extent the Codridae abandoned the kingly power." Dr. Sandys finds this unsatisfactory and emends avrì TÔV δοθεισών το ανταποδοθεισών, translating “corresponding privileges being (at the same time) assigned to the Archon." Now the writer is here speaking of the early development of the archonship, and it is worth some effort to get at Aristotle's meaning. The MS. reading, though faint and in part abbreviated, is agreed upon by all. The natural meaning of the words is clearly that which Kenyon finds in them, except in one point. The word. |