By René Rodière Published by Dalloz. (Eighth Edition, 657 pp. No price given)

One of the scholastic traditions of Continental countries is the synthesising of the whole mass of learning on an important subject into a single pocket volume. Dalloz in France is famous for its “Precis Series” not only on law, but economics, political science and administration. The latest edition of Dalloz on Maritime Law has now appeared and its author, as for the previous seven editions, is René Rodière, the rightful successor to the great Georges Ripert, the author of numerous editions up to 1962.

The text of Rodière, albeit a precis, is not one of those student “thumbnail” or “law in a nutshell” volumes. Rather it is a very detailed exposé of the maritime law of France, jam packed into a 657-page, 41/2” x 7” volume and done by the leading authority on the subject. It should be invaluable to the student, the legal practitioner, and those persons who earn their living from maritime matters.

Here we find a useful history of maritime law, notes on international unification followed by details of the law on ship ownership and registration, mortgages and liens, employment of seamen, carriage by charter-parties and bills of lading, carriage of passengers, collision, salvage and general average right through to marine insurance, the whole with considerable references. It is, in effect, a distillation of Rodière’s monumental six-volume treatise on maritime law.

Dean Rodière, who has been Professor of Maritime and Transport Law and the Director of The Institute of Comparative Law in Paris, is a person who writes with style, verve and obvious speed, if one is to account for his enormous production. He nevertheless writes with precision and detail. His comments can be amusing, they are always learned but at times he is quite cutting because like many persons of distinction “he cannot suffer fools kindly”. His opinion is awaited in Europe on most maritime matters and when, for example, he wrote last year denouncing some of the questionable postulates of the Hamburg Rules his commentary, albeit acerbic, set the general tone. “Audacious and incoherent rules of responsibility”, “the evident stupidity of the drafting of the fire clauses”, etc., etc.

Common law lawyers may not comprehend the reputation and authority of leading professors (elevated to the title of jurists) in Continental countries. Their writings are given higher authority than decisions of even the highest courts, not merely because the civil law theoretically does not accept “Judge-made” law but because the educational system allows certain professors the time and means to attain a level of specialisation and knowledge that puts them at the pinnacle of their profession although