Legal Science in Transition.  Between 1100 and 1500 the Roman law became the basis for legal science in continental Europe. By the end of the 12^th century, students from the Italian universities were carrying the new learning throughout western Europe. The study of the revived Roman law was carried on by THREE schools. The first in point of time—the Glossators---expounded the individual texts of the Corpus Juris. They were succeeded in the second half of the 13^th century by the commentators, who went beyond glosses on individual texts to systematic comments on legal problems. They did not ignore the law that was currently in effect but achieved a synthesis with it, thereby contributing to the introduction into practice of various specific rules and solutions contained in the Corpus Juris. The THIRD school was called the Humanists, whose beginnings were in Italy in the 15^th century. The Humanists brought a historical sense to the study of Roman law, undertaking to reconstruct the classical Roman law from the amended passages contained in the Digest. Theory and practice became increasingly separated because of the direction taken by legal scholarship and the high degree of learning required. In consequence, the universities became further removed from the practice of law than they had been when the Glossators and the Commentators were the dominant schools.

变迁中的法学。在1100年至1500年之间，罗马法成为了欧洲大陆的法学基础。到12世纪末，来自意大利大学的学生将这种新学问带到了整个西欧。由三所学校对复兴的罗马法继续进行了研究。第一个时间点---注释法学派---对《法令大全》的个别文本进行了阐述。他们在13世纪下半叶被评论法学派所继承，超越了对个别文本的注释，对法律问题进行了系统评论。他们并没有忽视现行的法律，而是将其综合，因此有助于将《法令大全》所包含的各种具体规则和解决办法付诸实践。第三学派被称为人文主义者，他们起源于15世纪的意大利。人文主义者为罗马法的研究带来了历史感，承诺从《判例摘要》包含的修改段落中重建古典罗马法。由于法律学术发展的方向和对学问的高度要求，理论和实践变得越来越分离。结果是，相比当时注释法学派和评论法学派占统治学派时的情况，大学变得更加远离了法律实践。

This separation of theory from practice probably operated to encourage and speculative thinking about law. In addition, the Corpus Juris provided a body of material for study and explanation that was, particularly in the earlier centuries, in advance of contemporary social and economic requirements in many respect. At all events, by the 16^th century speculative and systematic thinking developed out of the limited contractual types of Roman law a general theory of contract grounded upon agreement. By the end of the 18^th century the specifically Roman elements had, by and large, disappeared from the general law of contracts. The enforceability of formless contracts was generally recognized, and most legal writers supported the proposition that arrangements entirely unperformed on both sides were actionable regardless of whether they fell within a contractual type known to the Corpus Juris.

这种理论与实践的分离可能起到了对法律的鼓励和思辨性思考。另外，《法令大全》为研究和和解释提供了大量材料，尤其是在早期的几个世纪，在很多方面，超越了同时期社会和经济的要求。不管怎样，到16世纪思辨和系统性思考从罗马法的有限契约类型中发展出一种以协议为基础的一般契约理论。到18世纪末，罗马特有的要素大体上已从一般契约法中消失。无形式契约的可执行性得到普遍承认，而大多数法律作者都支持这样的观点，即双方完全未履行的安排，无论它们是否属于《法令大全》所列的契约类型都是可执行的。

In the field of contracts—as in other branches of the law—the crucial Roman influence on the modern civil law thus derived from the habits of thought, analysis, and presentation that were developed by university study of Roman law rather than from the specifics of that law. Men could transact more freely in terms of their needs and desires. In this way the intellectual ground was prepared in the field of contracts—and in the law generally—for the great codifications of the 19^th century.

在契约领域---正如在其它法律的分支一样---罗马对现代民法的重要影响源自大学对罗马法研究的思考、分析和陈述习惯，而不是该法的细节。就他们的需求和愿望而言，人们可以更加自由地交易。这样，就为19世纪大法典的编纂，在契约---和一般的法律领域奠定了知识基础。

Private Law Areas.  In private law fields the continental European countries generally reach results that are close to those found in the common law, although the rules and principles that produce and explain the result are often very different from those of the common law. Civil law systems do not have arrangements comparable to the trust, though some of the purposes served by that institution can be achieved in other ways. Traditionally, these systems have restricted a person’s freedom of testation (the right to bequeath property) more sharply than does the common law, by providing forced shares for the members of the deceased’s immediate family. Some form of joint or community property typically obtains between husband and wife unless another arrangement is provided in the marriage contact. Finally it can be noted that some civil law countries, such as Italy, do not permit divorce.

私法适用的范围。在私法领域中，欧洲大陆国家达到的结果通常与在普通法中查到的那些结果很接近，尽管产生和解释结果的规则和原则常常与普通法的规则和原则非常不同。民法体系没有类似的信任安排，虽然机构提供的某些目的可以用其它的方式实现。传统上，通过向死者的直系亲属强制提供股份，这些制度比普通法更严格地限制了个人立遗嘱（遗赠财产的权力）的自由。夫妻之间通常可获得某些共有或共同财产，除非在婚约中另有安排。最后，可以指出的是一些民法国家，像意大利，不允许离婚。

Procedure.  Both the substantive law and procedural rules are on a national basis in the major civil law countries of continental Europe. West Germany has some federal elements in the structure of its judiciary, as all except the highest courts are state courts. However, Germany has a single judicial hierarchy as distinguished from the separate and often parallel system of state and federal courts that exists in the United States.

程序。实体法和程序规则在欧洲大陆的主要民法国家中都是以国家为基础的。西德在其司法结构中有某些联邦的元素，因为除了最高法院外，所有法院都是州法院。然而，德国拥有单一的司法等级制度，与美国存在的州法院和联邦法院的单独且通常平行的系统不同。

 Civil law systems do not use a jury except for certain criminal matters. Civil litigation is handled either by a single judge or, in more important litigation, by a panel (usually THREE judges). The direction and control of the proceeding tends to be in the hands of the judge, who typically does most of the questioning of witnesses. In part because of the absence of a jury, relatively few exclusionary rules of evidence have been developed; the court takes evidence offered, so long as it is neither irrelevant nor simply cumulative, and gives it the weight that it deserves in reason. This avoids the problems that arise in the common law from exclusion of hearsay testimony.

除了某些刑事案件外，民法体系不用陪审团。民事诉讼要么由一位法官审理，在更重要的诉讼中，要么由一个专门小组（通常是三位法官）受理。程序的方向和控制往往由法官掌握，他通常对证人提出大部分询问。在某种程度上，由于没有陪审团，证据的排除规则制定的相对较少；只要证据既不是无关紧要的，也不是简单的累积，法院就接受提供的证据，并给与它应得的重要性。这避免了普通法中排除传闻证词所出现的问题。

Expert witnesses tend to be appointees of the court and so may present their views in a more impartial fashion than do the experts who, in usual American practice, are selected and paid by one of the parties. Fees for litigation are typically fixed by law or schedule and are regularly assessed against the losing part. Many civil law countries have well-developed systems of legal aid for those unable to afford counsel.

专家证人倾向于由法院任命，因此可能比通常在美国惯例中的那些专家以一种更公正的方式提出他们的见解，美国的专家是由一方的当事人选择并支付费用的。诉讼费用通常由法律或时间表来确定，并定期对损失的部分进行评估。许多民法国家为那些请不起辩护律师的人们建立了完善的法律援助制度。

Two levels of review are usually provided. At the first level, the entire case can be redone, including the rehearing of testimony and the taking of new testimony. The second level of review is limited to questions of law, rather strictly defined.

通常会提供两个层级的审查。在第一层级，整个诉讼可以重做，包括重新听取证词和接受新证词。第二层级的审查只限于法律问题，界定相当严格。

The Two Systems Compared.  In many respects the civil and common law systems are closer today in their general methods and approaches than they were in earlier periods. On the one hand, the common law has become far more systematic and speculative in its approach. Due in large measure to the influence and efforts of academic legal scholarship. On the other, the systematic quality of a code inevitably decreases with the passage of time as decisional law comes to play a significant role.

两种体系的比较。在许多方面，今天的民法和普通法体系在它们的一般方法和途径上比它们早期的要更为接近。另一方面，普通法在其途径上已变得更加系统化和具有思辨性。这在很大程度上要归功于学术法律研究的影响和努力。另一方面，随着时间的推移，当判例法开始发挥重要作用时，法典的系统质量不可避免地会下降。

Each system has thus come in recent decades to an appreciation of the other’s traditional strength. The common law has grown to understand the economy of effort and the values of intellectual order that flow from an effort to state legal rules in a systematic, fairly generalized for. The civil law has increasingly perceived the virtue of testing, refining, and developing rules and principles in the light of precise fact situations.

因此，每个体系在最近都开始欣赏对方的传统长处。普通法已逐渐理解努力的经济性和智力秩序的价值，这是从一个系统的，相当概括的国家法律规则的努力中产生的。根据确切的实事情况，民法已逐渐意识到检验、提炼以及发展规则和原则的优势。

Important differences in intellectual style still remain. These are reflected in legal writing and in legal education. Writers on the civil law tend to produce treatises; in the common law, effort is generally concentrated on less ambitious monographs. Continental legal education proceeds essentially by a lecture system designed to give a comprehensive description of existing rules and institutions. Common law legal education—at least in its American form—uses a discussion, or “case,” method designed to explore the importance of policy and factual considerations in the decision-taking process. The Continental approach thus emphasizes structure and system while the American stresses the difficulties and unresolved problems in the law, sometimes at the expense of system and intellectual order.

在思维方式方面依然保留了重要差异。这些都反映在法律写作和法律教育中。民法的写作者倾向于撰写论述；在普通法中，努力通常集中在不那么艰巨的专题著作上。欧洲大陆的法律教育基本上是通过讲座系统进行的，旨在对现行的规则和制度给予全面描述。普通法教育---至少在其美国的形式---使用讨论，或“案例”的方法，旨在决策过程中探索政策和实事考虑的重要性。因此，欧洲大陆的途径强调结构和制度，而美国的方法是强调法律中的困难和未能解决的问题，有时以牺牲制度和智力秩序为代价。

Finally, to a greater degree than in other legal systems, civil and common law alike, the American lawyer seeks to anticipate possible legal difficulties and to devise arrangements that avoid potential legal, economic, and human hazards from which future disputes could grow.

最后，无论是民法还是普通法，在很大程度上美国律师寻求的是预见可能出现的法律困难，并做出相应的安排，以避免潜在的，在未来可能由此产生争端的法律、经济和人为的风险。

                                        ARTHUR VON MEHREN

                                   Harvard University Law School

                                         亚瑟·冯·梅伦

                                         哈佛大学法学院

                                         2023年6月9日译

（译者注：该部分词条位列《大美百科全书》1985年版，第6卷，第765页至767页）