Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Finley Studies in Land and Credit in Ancient Athens
Finley Studies in Land and Credit in Ancient Athens
Finley
Review by: Livio Stecchini
Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 61, No. 3 (Jun., 1953), pp. 266-268
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1824918 .
Accessed: 20/09/2013 10:55
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal
of Political Economy.
http://www.jstor.org
266
BOOK REVIEWS
Yale University
Under such conditions, as H. G. Brown originally demonstrated and as Earl Rolph has recently shown, the tax must be shifted backward
to the owners of the productive factors. A
major share of the burden of the general excise
tax, as it is actually imposed in Hawaii, may
well be borne by consumers. If this is true, however, it is precisely because the tax is not general
in the sense of the analytical model.
Structurally, the book suffers from the same
limitation of scope that is imposed on any study
of a tax system in isolation from the public
expenditure system. The system must, in such
circumstances, be evaluated by such criteria as
"ability-to-pay," "regressiveness," or "progressiveness." The last two of these criteria are
objectively meaningful and are thus useful for
classification purposes, but all three are practically worthless in estimating the social desirability of either a single tax or a whole tax
system. The 2 per cent compensation tax offers
a good example of this point. Although the
author is able to condemn this tax as inequitable
because it discriminates against wage- and
salary-earners in comparison with independentincome receivers, he is prevented from demonstrating the full onerousness of the tax because
of his neglect of benefit or expenditure considerations. This tax was imposed by the territory primarily to burden federally employed
wage-earners working on defense establishments, a large portion of whom were, and are,
temporary island residents, maintaining mainland homes. They received during World War
II relatively few benefits from territorial expenditures. In addition, they took almost no
part in the tax-making process. It is little
wonder that they have been "recalcitrant" in
paying such a tax.
J. M. BUCHANAN
Florida State University
Tallahassee, Florida
BOOK REVIEWS
the stones to be integrated with other sources of
information, particularly court orations, in
order to determine which type of legal relation
was involved? The problem is important, since
without its solution it is impossible to make
much progress in the study of land tenure in
Attica. In turn, a knowledge of the system of
land tenure contributes to a better understanding of the constitutional developments in
Athenian democracy. This explains why two
extensive treatises on this apparently highly
specialized topic have appeared almost simultaneously. One is the book under review and the
other is the work by John V. A. Fine, Horoi:
Studies in Mortgage, Real Security, and Land
Tenure in Ancient Athens (Hesperia, Suppl. 9
[1951]). The works overlap in two respects: both
contain a complete listing of the inscriptions and
an attempt to define the contracts to which they
refer. But in spite of this the two works complement each other. Fine's work is more thorough
from a strictly epigraphical point of view and
somehow more detailed in the discussion of the
evidence afforded by Attic orators. Finley's
scope is wider, and his bibliography is richer.
Whereas Fine follows the fashion established by
archeologists and epigraphists who write only
for the benefit of their fellow-specialists, Finley
makes a laudable effort to present the material
and the problem in a way comprehensible to a
less limited audience. His talent for historical
writing is helpful in presenting a clear and wellproportioned picture. He is informed in matters
of law but falls short in the legal analysis of the
relations between the parties. Essential to this
analysis is the distinction between property and
possession which is one of the most subtle issues
of ancient law. Fine proved wiser by prefacing
his work with the statement: "My lack of
formal legal training may have caused me to
make certain statements which, in the eyes of
legal experts, will seem unprofessional and possibly even naive."
The legal issue has been brilliantly discussed
by Ugo E. Paoli, who, however, proved to be too
much of a lawyer's lawyer and multiplied distinctions unnecessarily. One should have examined which of the many legal alternatives
presented by Paoli is actually supported by the
empirical data. Fine has done useful work by
proving that some of Paoli's constructions are
not in agreement with the evidence, but he has
unjustifiably rejected all of them. Finley dismisses Paoli's work even more curtly as "intricate legal constructs" (p. 201, n. 28). Paoli's
267
268
BOOK REVIEWS
of ancient legal practices. The fact that Pringsheim's The Greek Law of Sale was not published until 1950 may be the reason why Finley
did not arrive at an appreciation of the vital
importance of its findings.
Livio STECCHINI
Princeton, New Jersey