In his 1955 inaugural lecture as Professor of Comparative Law at the University of Cambridge,1 CJ Hamson suggested that the survival of legal history, and by implication comparative law, depended on it being thought of as part of every substantive area of law, rather than only as a separate discipline. Facing a decline in the subject’s appeal and the research done on it, this approach sought to protect its long-term future by ensuring that some of its content and reasoning were studied by all students. Today, legal history’s position is no more certain (though, one might hope, no less). There is much excellent legal history research being done, but student interest in the subject is hardly robust. Looking back at Hamson’s inaugural plan reminds us that there are some battles we have been fighting for a long time; some we might even be fighting forever. But are all things in legal history so constant? Are all legal actors doomed to rehearse the debates and repeat the tasks of their predecessors? Put another way, we might well wonder what future legal historians will think of us, our work, and our ideas today. I would like to briefly consider just two aspects of Hamson’s call: the legal historian’s role in the law school, and legal history’s relationship with other areas of law, particularly comparative law. Like Hamson, the focus will be on English law, but the issues and ideas apply more generally. Hamson gave his address just before the role of the legal academic in England and Wales was about to change significantly. AWB Simpson’s recollection of Oxford in the early 1950s was that law did not enjoy a high academic reputation, and most undergraduates at the university who planned to join the Bar did not read law.2 However, this …

中文翻译：

---

如果现在是过去

在 1955 年作为剑桥大学比较法教授的就职演讲中，1 CJ Hamson 建议，法律史以及比较法的存续取决于将其视为每个实体法领域的一部分，而不是将其视为每个实体法领域的一部分。只是作为一个单独的学科。面对这门学科的吸引力和对其进行的研究的下降，这种方法试图通过确保所有学生都学习其某些内容和推理来保护其长期未来。今天，法律史的立场不再确定（尽管，人们可能希望如此）。有很多优秀的法律史研究正在进行，但学生对该学科的兴趣并不强烈。回顾哈姆森的就职计划，提醒我们有一些战斗我们已经战斗了很长时间；有些我们甚至可能永远战斗。但是，法律史上的所有事物都是如此不变的吗？是否所有法律行为者都注定要排练辩论并重复前辈的任务？换句话说，我们很可能想知道未来的法律历史学家会如何看待我们、我们的工作和我们今天的想法。我只想简要地考虑一下 Hamson 呼吁的两个方面：法律史学家在法学院中的角色，以及法律史与其他法律领域，尤其是比较法领域的关系。与 Hamson 一样，重点将放在英国法律上，但这些问题和想法更普遍适用。哈姆森在英格兰和威尔士法律学者的角色即将发生重大变化之前发表了讲话。AWB Simpson 在 1950 年代初期对牛津的回忆是，法律没有享有很高的学术声誉，