writing an ‘epic story’ of the development of freedom under common law. Blackstone would, I am sure, have been delighted to be recognized as not just a Coke, or even a Justinian, but a Homer. This focus on freedom under law recurs in Simon Stern’s preface to Book II and Ruth Paley’s to Book IV. Seen in this light, the Commentaries appear to be rather more than the sum of their parts. Despite the achievements of this volume, this will not be the final word on the Commentaries. For example, there has still been no systematic study of notes taken by students at Blackstone’s lectures, comparing these to the Commentaries themselves. Stern’s introduction to Book II does include some such comparison, and a fuller study could well be rewarding. Like all good scholarship should, this edition expands our understanding, but also challenges us. In light of Blackstone’s textual tinkering, what were the Commentaries? This edition destabilizes the idea that there is a single version of Blackstone’s work. However much Blackstone and his Commentaries have been carved in stone and cast in bronze, the text itself is revealed to be much less permanent. Users of the Commentaries now have no excuse not to be more careful in their understanding of the mutability of this important text. Legal historians have (or should have) been sensitive to these changes, but for other users of the text these changes might be important. For example, does (or should) it affect the legitimacy of using Blackstone in the modern United States that the varia reveal Blackstone to have amended Book I in opposition to the cause of the revolting colonists? Ruth Paley in her preface to Book IV similarly notes that greater understanding of Blackstone’s sources casts some doubt on his utility as a guide to the law. If Blackstone recycled material from the seventeenth century, should he be relied upon uncritically as describing the law of the eighteenth century? Such challenges should provoke further scholarship, and future scholars will benefit immensely from this exceptionally valuable contribution to legal history, the standard edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries for the future.

中文翻译：

---

侵权法的历史：1900-1950

书写普通法下自由发展的“史诗故事”。我敢肯定，黑石会很高兴被认为不仅仅是可口可乐，甚至是查士丁尼，而是荷马。西蒙·斯特恩 (Simon Stern) 为第二卷的序言和露丝·佩利 (Ruth Paley) 的第四卷序言中再次出现了这种对法律下自由的关注。从这个角度来看，《注释》似乎不仅仅是它们各部分的总和。尽管这卷取得了成就，但这不会是注释的最终定论。例如，仍然没有系统地研究学生在 Blackstone 讲座中所做的笔记，将这些笔记与评论本身进行比较。Stern 对 Book II 的介绍确实包含了一些这样的比较，更全面的研究可能会有所收获。像所有优秀的学术一样，这个版本扩展了我们的理解，但也挑战了我们。鉴于 Blackstone 的文字修修补补，评论是什么？这个版本打破了 Blackstone 作品只有一个版本的想法。不管布莱克斯通和他的注释有多少是用石头雕刻和用青铜铸造的，但文本本身却没有那么永久。注释的用户现在没有理由不更加小心地理解这一重要文本的可变性。法律历史学家已经（或应该）对这些变化很敏感，但对于文本的其他用户来说，这些变化可能很重要。例如，是否（或应该）影响在现代美国使用 Blackstone 的合法性，即变种显示 Blackstone 修改了第一本书以反对反抗殖民者的事业？露丝·佩利在第四卷的序言中同样指出，对布莱克斯通的资料来源的更深入了解会让人怀疑他作为法律指南的效用。如果 Blackstone 回收了 17 世纪的材料，是否应该不加批判地依赖他来描述 18 世纪的法律？这样的挑战应该会激发更多的学术研究，未来的学者将从这一对法律史——Blackstone 未来评论的标准版——的极其宝贵的贡献中受益匪浅。如果 Blackstone 回收了 17 世纪的材料，是否应该不加批判地依赖他来描述 18 世纪的法律？这样的挑战应该会激发更多的学术研究，未来的学者将从这一对法律史——Blackstone 未来评论的标准版——的极其宝贵的贡献中受益匪浅。如果 Blackstone 回收了 17 世纪的材料，是否应该不加批判地依赖他来描述 18 世纪的法律？这样的挑战应该会激发更多的学术研究，未来的学者将从这一对法律史——Blackstone 未来评论的标准版——的极其宝贵的贡献中受益匪浅。