It has been rightly said that the relationship between historians and the legal phenomena they study is not immutable and that the changes it experiences through successive periods in different regions triggers in legal historians the need to identify various conceptions about law, this being the main object of study. The mission of the history of legal historiography will therefore be to ensure that the works of legal historians are not interpreted with current criteria and hence recover their original meaning, being restored to a structure formed at least by philosophical-juridical ideas; historical-juridical theories; and the essential features of the political, economic, and social reality of that given moment. In this paper I will try to approach that mission. I will only try to get closer, since I will only be able to sketch some of those conceptions. I will try to delineate the periods in which Latin-American legal historiography can be divided and grouped. Further, I will highlight authors for each of those periods within the jurisdictions that offer more studies in this field. Many scholars, however, will necessarily not find a place in this account. Such omissions are a result of a lack of information and of the need to offer, in this exposé, a general, non-exhaustive overview of the topic. Hence, such omissions are far from being ill-intentioned. I also point that – this time in a deliberate manner – I will only refer to legal historians that are no longer active in the field. References to active scholars will be only in general terms. History shows that four factors influenced the development of Latin-American historiography beyond individual initiatives. These factors are the establishment of legal history chairs, the creation of specialized scientific institutes, the emergence of legal history journals, and the organization of congresses, conferences, and symposia in the field. These factors will be considered throughout this brief account. History also shows that the current paradigm of this field of study is not absolutely novel since it is the result of a progressive gestation. It is worth dividing this brief account into periods, even when being aware that the boundaries will be imprecise and differ between jurisdictions. Five periods can be identified: embryonic, positivist-sociological, scientific consolidation, institutionalist, and social legal history. It should be further noted that across these periods scholars were inclined either towards dogmatism or towards general history.

中文翻译：

---

拉丁美洲法律史学之旅

历史学家和他们研究的法律现象之间的关系不是一成不变的，在不同地区的连续时期所经历的变化引发了法律史学家对各种法律概念的识别需要，这是法学研究的主要对象。学习。因此，法律史学史的使命将是确保法律史学家的作品不被以当前的标准解释，从而恢复其原始意义，恢复到至少由哲学-司法思想形成的结构；历史司法理论；以及那个特定时刻的政治、经济和社会现实的基本特征。在本文中，我将尝试实现这一使命。我只会努力靠近，因为我只能勾勒出其中的一些概念。我将尝试描绘拉丁美洲法律史学可以划分和分组的时期。此外，我将重点介绍在该领域提供更多研究的司法管辖区内每个时期的作者。然而，许多学者不一定会在这个帐户中找到一席之地。此类遗漏是由于缺乏信息以及需要在本次披露中提供对该主题的一般性、非详尽概述。因此，这种疏忽远非恶意。我还指出——这次是故意的——我只会提到不再活跃在该领域的法律历史学家。对活跃学者的引用将只是笼统的。历史表明，除了个人倡议之外，还有四个因素影响了拉丁美洲史学的发展。这些因素是法律史教席的设立、专门的科学研究机构的创建、法律史期刊的出现，以及该领域的代表大会、会议和座谈会的组织。这些因素将在本简短说明中予以考虑。历史还表明，该研究领域的当前范式并非绝对新颖，因为它是渐进式孕育的结果。值得将这个简短的说明分成几个时期，即使意识到边界将不精确并且在不同司法管辖区之间有所不同。可以确定五个时期：胚胎时期、实证主义社会学时期、科学巩固时期、制度主义时期和社会法律史。