in late nineteenth-century England. Hudson describes the conflicting views of F. W. Maitland and John Austin on legal theory and the severe criticism Maitland expressed against Austin. A central critique by Maitland was the ahistoricism of Austin’s theory. Maitland argued that proper knowledge of history can free the present generation from reverence for inherited law that is in need of reform and that Austin did not take historical arguments into account when writing his theory. Hudson points out, however, that Austin certainly knew a lot about legal history and even remarked that failure to study Roman law could explain the failings of the greatest thinkers. For this and other reasons legal historians have regarded Maitland as missing Austin’s significance (326). On the whole, the volume provides an impressive and remarkably diverse overview on matters of authority in British legal history. At some points the reader may have expected a somewhat more identifiable focus on the abstract idea of authority. All the same, it is an enjoyable collection of essays that succeeds in highlighting crucial facets of the idea of legal authority in Britain between 1200 and 1900, advances the understanding of the concept of authority in British legal history and is an enrichment to any library on legal history.

中文翻译：

---

教皇制、君主制和婚姻，860–1600 年

在十九世纪末的英国。哈德森描述了 FW 梅特兰和约翰奥斯汀在法律理论方面的冲突观点以及梅特兰对奥斯汀的严厉批评。梅特兰的一个核心批评是奥斯汀理论的非历史性。梅特兰认为，正确的历史知识可以使当代人摆脱对需要改革的继承法的崇敬，并且奥斯汀在撰写他的理论时没有考虑历史论据。然而，哈德森指出，奥斯汀当然对法律史了解很多，甚至表示不研究罗马法可以解释最伟大思想家的失败。由于这个原因和其他原因，法律历史学家认为梅特兰缺少奥斯汀的重要性（326）。总体上，该卷对英国法律史上的权威问题提供了令人印象深刻且非常多样化的概述。在某些时候，读者可能期望对权威的抽象概念有更明确的关注。尽管如此，它还是一本令人愉快的论文集，成功地突出了 1200 年至 1900 年英国法律权威理念的关键方面，促进了对英国法律史上权威概念的理解，并丰富了任何图书馆法律史。