法律史学在“逆风时代”的挣扎——从日本《法制史研究》第70号所载两种专题报告集谈起  

How to Extricate the Discipline of Legal History from the Predicament:Thoughts on Two Symposiums Contained in Vol.70th of Legal History Study(Japan)

作　　者：赵晶[1] Zhao Jing

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学法律古籍整理研究所

出　　处：《厦门大学法律评论》2022年第2期19-31,共13页Xiamen University Law Review

摘　　要：日本《法制史研究》杂志第70号上刊登了两种专题报告集,分别是“日本的法史研究史”和“日本法史/法制史教科书的可能性”,从学科初创史和教科书的编写原则出发,讨论法制史学的定位问题。由此反观中国法律史学,我们应从“学问史”的角度梳理近代以来的法律史学家群体,辨析不同学科出身者的研究路径,积累基于法学方法的研究个案,彰显法律史学的独立性;通过酝酿跨学科的问题意识、保持不同学科在方法论上的紧张关系,谋求与历史学等其他学科的对话;在现实立法层面,立足传统,为当下的法制变革提供正、反面论据,尤其是应致力于平抑冒进的立法建议或针砭现行法中存在的问题。There are two symposiums published on the Vol.70th of Legal History Study(Japan),which are separately named“History of Legal History Studies in Japan”and“Possibilities of Japanese Legal History Textbooks”.They contain discussions on the discipline orientation of legal history carried out from the early history of such a discipline and the principles of compilation of textbooks.If rethinking Chinese legal history studies on the basis of those discussions,we should review the group of legal historians since modern times from the perspective of Wissenschaftsgeschichte(“history of knowledge”),analyse the research approaches adopted by researchers with different subject backgrounds,accumulate individual cases based on legal methods and highlight the independence of legal history.We should also seek dialogues with historians and researchers from other fields by considering interdisciplinary problem consciousness and maintain the tension of methodology between different disciplines.When it comes to the level of legislation in reality,we should base on the tradition and provide positive and negative arguments for contemporary legal transforms,particularly working on the restraints on premature legislative suggestions and the criticisms against current laws.

关 键 词：法律史学 学科独立性 方法论 现实贡献 

分 类 号：D909.9[政治法律—法学理论]