Sir Paul Vinogradoff was once well known for his historically contextualised approach to legal theory which held that legal ideas were the contingent products of social factors. Law was necessarily engaged with other subjects, and ‘historical jurisprudence’ could produce real insight into the nature of law – in part by placing theories such as analytical jurisprudence in context, evaluating and modifying theoretical models by reference to the contingent social facts of an era. This was part of the nineteenth-century turn to ‘science’ in history and a focus on methodology. Sir Henry Maine argued that legal history proved the insufficiency of analytic theories, but his method met with many criticisms, some of which Vinogradoff sought to address. However, Vinogradoff's insights have rarely been pursued or developed, with legal history favouring Maitland's more doctrinal approach, and legal theory rejecting historical jurisprudence – at least explicitly. Despite its imperfections, historical jurisprudence offers a rich and valuable way to understand law, including to evaluate analytical models such of those of HLA Hart, and as a methodology for dialogue between comparative and historical legal scholarship. It has, in fact, continued to do so without explicit recognition in the 100 years since Vinogradoff's death.

中文翻译：

---

一去不复返了：维诺格拉多夫的历史判例

保罗·维诺格拉多夫爵士曾经因其历史背景化的法律理论方法而闻名，该方法认为法律观念是社会因素的偶然产物。法律必然与其他学科相结合，“历史法学”可以对法律的本质产生真正的洞察力——部分是通过将分析法学等理论置于上下文中，通过参考一个时代的偶然社会事实来评估和修改理论模型. 这是 19 世纪历史上转向“科学”和对方法论的关注的一部分。亨利·缅因爵士认为，法律史证明了分析理论的不足，但他的方法遇到了许多批评，其中一些批评是维诺格拉多夫试图解决的。然而，维诺格拉多夫的见解很少被追求或发展，法律史偏爱梅特兰的教条主义方法，而法律理论拒绝历史法理学——至少是明确的。尽管存在缺陷，但历史法学为理解法律提供了一种丰富而有价值的方式，包括评估 HLA Hart 等分析模型，以及作为比较法学和历史法学之间对话的方法论。事实上，在维诺格拉多夫去世后的 100 年里，它一直在这样做，但没有得到明确的承认。并作为比较和历史法律学术之间对话的方法。事实上，在维诺格拉多夫去世后的 100 年里，它一直在这样做，但没有得到明确的承认。并作为比较和历史法律学术之间对话的方法。事实上，在维诺格拉多夫去世后的 100 年里，它一直在这样做，但没有得到明确的承认。