凡未经许可擅自转载本站文章者，将被授予“学术臭虫”称号！
John Austin 的 Lectures on Jurisprudence(vol.2) 中的拉丁语疑难解答
【问】尊敬的徐教授：
您好！我是＋＋大学的一名本科学生，最近在读 John Austin 的 Lectures on Jurisprudence(vol.2) ，其文字中经常穿插拉丁语文字，以罗马法作为讲演的基本法律背景。单独的词汇大体还能通过上下文以及拉丁语词典看明白（尽管时常困惑于其词形变化的繁复），但在 530 ～ 531 页的一段拉丁文注释就真的让学生手足无措了，希望老师百忙之余略加点化，学生不胜感激！文字见下，有几个字母印刷不清晰，恐有疏漏，请老师海涵：
29. Leges namque Anglicanas licet non scriptas leges appellari non videatur absurdum, cum hoc ipsum lex sit, quod principi placet legis habet vigorem, eas scilicet quas super dubiis in concilio definiendis, procerum quidem consilio et principis accedente auctoritate constat esse promulgatas. Si enim ob scripture solummodo defectum leges minime censerentur,majoris (procul dubio) authoritatis robur ipsis legibus videretur accommodare scriptura,quam vel ratio statuentis.Leges autem et jura regni scripto universaliter concludi nostris temporibus omnino quidem impossibile est:cum propter scribentium ignorantiam,tum propter earum multitudinem confusam:verum sunt quedam in Curi^a generalia ,et frequentius usitate ,que scripto commendare non mihi videtur presumptuosum ,sed et plerisque perutile ,et ad adjuvandam memmoriam admodum recessarium.Harum itaque particulam quandam in scripta redigere decrevi,stilo vulgari et verbis curialibus utens ex industria ad notitiam comparandam eis qui hujusmodi vulgaritate minus sunt exercitati.
期待您的回复！
【答】贵网站上徐国栋教授的帖子“征求对拉丁语疑难问题的解答”里面，“问家四”询问 Austin 在 Lectures on Jurisprudence,Vol.2中引用的一段拉丁语的含义。
这段拉丁语出自一本古代英国人的著作的绪言 (Prologus)。该书名为Tractatus de legibus et consuetudinibus regni Anglie ，大约写成于1187到1189年间(我国的南宋时期)，是有史以来第一部论述普通法的著作。通常该书被署名为 Glanville 所作，其实作者已不可考。目前最权威的版本出版于1965年，系由Hall英译和评注。
我在这里把这段拉丁语及其英译抄在后面。请注意我所抄写的拉丁文本在分段、标点、词语上与“问家四”问题中的文本有所不同。这有些可能是“问家四”抄写的错误，但更有可能是因为 Austin 当时 ( 十九世纪中叶 ) 所据的本子与 Hall 的 1965 年的定本有些出入。
我没有很多时间仔细将英译文翻成中文。第一段的大义是，虽然英格兰的法律没有成文，但这不影响将其称之为法律，尤其是那些经贵要所商议并由国王首肯的法律，所谓“国王所认可者即法律也”。假如不成文即不为法，那岂不是意味着文字会赋予法律以特别的效力？
第二段的大义是，虽然由於法律繁多，或者书记员的无知，英格兰的法律不可能全部被诉诸文字，但是有一些普遍的法律原则，由於经常在法庭上适用，则有可能被形成文字，庶几有所俾益。
希望有些帮助。
慕易
Leges autem Anglicanas licet non scriptas leges appellari non uideatur absurdum, cum hoc ipsum lex sit, quod principi placet legis habet uigorem, eas scilicet quas super dubiis in concilio diffiniendis, procerum quidem consilio et principis accedente auctoritate, constat esse promulgatas. Si enim ob solum scripture defectum leges minime censerentur, maioris proculdubio auctoritatis robur ipsis legibus uideretur accommodare scriptura, quam uel decernentis equitas aut ratio statuentis. (p. 2)
Leges autem et iura regni scripto uniuersaliter concludi nostris temporibus omnino quidem impossibile est, tum propter scribentium ignoranciam tum propter eorundem multitudinem confusam. Verum sunt quedam in curia generalia et frequentius usitata, que scripto commendare non mihi uidetur presumptuosum, sed plerisque perutile et ad iuuandam memmoriam admodum necessarium. Horum utique particulam quandam in scripta redigere decreui, stilo uulgari et uerbis curialibus utens ex industria ad eorum noticiam comparandam eis qui huiusmodi uulgaritate minus sunt exercitati. (p. 3)
Although the laws of England are not written, it does not seem absurd to call them laws – those, that is, which are known to have been promulgated about problems settled in council on the advice of the magnates and with the supporting authority of the prince – for this also is a law, that ‘what pleases the prince has the force of law'. For if, merely for lack of writing, they were not deemed to be laws, then surely writing would seem to supply to written laws a force of greater authority than either the justice of him who decrees them or the reason of him who establishes them. (p. 2)
It is, however, utterly impossible for the laws and legal rules of the realm to be wholly reduced to writing in our time, both because of the ignorance of scribes and because of the confused multiplicity of those same laws and rules. But there are some general rules frequently observed in court which it does not seems to me presumptuous to commit to writing, but rather very useful for most people and highly necessary to aid the memory. I have decided to put into writing at least a small part of these general rules, adopting intentionally a commonplace style and words used in court in order to provide knowledge of them for those who are not versed in this kind of inelegant language. (p. 3)
(Glanville, Ranulf de, The Treatise on the Laws and Customs of the Realm of England, Commonly Called Glanvill , (Tractatus de legibus et consuetudinibus regni Anglie qui Glanvilla vocatur), edited with Introduction, Notes, and Translation, by G.D.G. Hall, London: Nelson, 1965)
声明：站内文章均仅供个人研究之用，如有侵权，请权利人来信告知。
站内未注明作者之文章均为原创，如要使用或转载请来信告知。
前期统计IP计数2320，新计数从2003年11月3日开始运行。
