Being faced with the task of writing an essay on the future of one’s own subject is both a tremendous opportunity and an outrageous risk: an opportunity, because one has to render an account of the current state of research as well as its capacities for future development. One might even be able to caution the community about possible aberrations or meanders. However, this creative power has to be weighed against the risk that one’s obviously subjective assessments might be rejected. This danger is particularly great if one strives to present a finely nuanced and sophisticated view, as one always runs the risk of getting caught between two stools. Nevertheless, scientific progress hinges on dissent and on a passionate, insatiable thirst for knowledge. The following brief considerations should hence serve as a thought-provoking impulse as well as a subjective snapshot of the inner workings of the discipline of ‘Roman law’, which generally considers itself as a sub-discipline of legal history, at least in the context of university structures. Any suggestions that might help stop gaps, mend errors, or even provide alternatives to the observations given here, are therefore warmly welcome. Asking about the future inevitably raises the question about the past and its influence on the current state of the discipline. To begin with, a couple of observations on the tradition of Roman law in Europe and in the Anglo-American world are therefore in order. In Europe, the study of Roman law has a longstanding tradition as an analysis of the legal foundations of one’s own codification of private law. On the one hand, this tradition led to the fact that Roman law never migrated into the philosophy faculties but rather remained a genuine subject of legal education. On the other hand, the connection between Roman law and modern private …

中文翻译：

---

法律史的未来：罗马法

面临着写一篇关于自己学科未来的论文的任务，这既是一个巨大的机会，也是一个巨大的风险：一个机会，因为人们必须对当前的研究状态及其未来发展的能力进行说明. 人们甚至可以提醒社区注意可能的畸变或曲折。然而，这种创造力必须与明显主观评估可能被拒绝的风险进行权衡。如果一个人努力呈现一种细致入微和复杂的观点，这种危险就特别大，因为一个人总是冒着被夹在两个凳子之间的风险。然而，科学进步取决于异议和对知识的热情和永不满足的渴望。因此，以下简短的考虑应作为发人深省的冲动以及“罗马法”学科内部运作的主观快照，该学科通常认为自己是法律史的子学科，至少在上下文中大学结构。因此，我们热烈欢迎任何可能有助于消除差距、纠正错误甚至为此处给出的观察提供替代方案的建议。询问未来不可避免地会引发关于过去及其对学科现状的影响的问题。首先，有必要对欧洲和英美世界的罗马法传统进行一些观察。在欧洲，罗马法研究作为分析个人私法编纂的法律基础有着悠久的传统。一方面，这一传统导致这样一个事实，即罗马法从未迁移到哲学系，而是一直是法学教育的真正主题。另一方面，罗马法与现代私法之间的联系……