Both on the continent and the British Isles, early modern law was characterised by hybridity, i.e. a complex amalgamation of various unlike elements, originating from a plurality of legal bodies. This complexity is not always fully recognised in the traditional scholarly approach to early modern law and even less when teaching legal history. The latter can to a certain extent be justified. In order to get to grips with the various sources of law of early modern jurisdictions and their mutual coherence it can be considered convenient to simplify matters. However, for young researchers in the field of legal history it is vitally important to be aware of the complexity of early modern law and the fact that legal concepts and sources were only raised to a higher level of unity when, in the nineteenth century, plurality of laws had to make way for common, national bodies of legal norms. The present volume displays a variety of case studies showing the full extent of the early modern complexity in the various European legal traditions, including the civilian tradition of the continent, English Common Law and the Nordic traditions. For their purpose the editors could have compiled existing studies, but instead they motivated a number of legal historians from all over Europe to write original contributions with the sole purpose of elucidating the complexity mentioned above. This provides the volume with an added value, particularly since the authors made the effort to critically reflect upon each other’s drafts. Moreover, the volume can be highly recommended due to the excellent, copious introductory chapter by the editors (9–34). It clearly describes the topic of the contributions in all its aspects and elucidates their coherence. Researchers, entering the field of earlymodern law, will find a considerable amount of useful information. Let us hope the editors will realise their intention of composing a second volume; this time dealingwith the era of codified law (26 n 82)whichwill elucidate the transition to modern national law and show to what extent this development put an end to the complexity of early modern law as displayed in the present volume.

中文翻译：

---

法律的众多机构：关于法律混合性和管辖权复杂性的研究，c1600–1900

在欧洲大陆和不列颠群岛，早期现代法律的特点是混合性，即源自多个法律机构的各种不同要素的复杂合并。这种复杂性并不总是在早期现代法律的传统学术方法中得到充分认识，在教授法律史时更是如此。后者在一定程度上是合理的。为了掌握早期现代司法管辖区的各种法律渊源及其相互之间的连贯性，可以认为简化问题很方便。然而，对于法律史领域的年轻研究人员来说，意识到早期现代法律的复杂性以及法律概念和来源仅在 19 世纪时才被提升到更高水平的统一这一事实至关重要，法律的多元化必须为共同的国家法律规范机构让路。本卷展示了各种案例研究，展示了各种欧洲法律传统中早期现代复杂性的全部范围，包括欧洲大陆的民事传统、英国普通法和北欧传统。为了他们的目的，编辑本可以汇编现有的研究，但他们激励来自欧洲各地的一些法律历史学家撰写原创文章，其唯一目的是阐明上述复杂性。这为本书提供了附加值，特别是因为作者努力批判性地反思彼此的草稿。此外，由于编辑 (9-34) 的优秀、丰富的介绍性章节，可以强烈推荐该卷。它清楚地描述了贡献的各个方面的主题并阐明了它们的连贯性。进入早期现代法律领域的研究人员会发现大量有用的信息。让我们希望编辑们能够实现他们撰写第二卷的意图；这一次涉及成文法时代 (26 n 82)，它将阐明向现代国内法的过渡，并展示这一发展在多大程度上结束了本卷中所展示的早期现代法律的复杂性。