【摘要】 目前仍被一些法学著述援用的四种法史成说，其论断是否准确需重新审视。“中国法律儒家化”说概念边界不清，存在忽视法家和其他诸子思想影响、与法律编纂和实施不相吻合的缺陷。“习惯法”说概念过度扩张，忽视古代民间事务管理规范由朝廷法律、地方法律、民间规约、习惯四个层次构成，忽视明清时期皇权实际管辖的汉族地区习惯普遍实现了规约化。“司法与行政合一”说对各主要王朝中央司法机关功能的概括舛错，忽视了宋代以降地方司法与行政又分又合的实际。“判例”说用英美法系中“判例”一词表述中国古代的“比附判决”系概念错位，对秦汉“比”、两汉魏晋“故事”、清代“成案”的性质论证失于偏颇，误导产生了中国古代实行的是“成文法与判例法相结合制度”的臆断。概念的准确性是学术研究的基石，只有摒弃不实成说，坚持实事求是的治学态度，精确地使用学术概念，才能推动中国法律史走向科学。更多还原

【Abstract】 The four established theses in Chinese legal history that are still cited in some legal writings today require re-examination regarding the accuracy of their conclusions. The thesis of “Confucianization of Chinese law” suffers from ill-defined contours. It overlooks the influence of Legalism and other philosophical traditions, and fails to align with the historical realities of legal codification and implementation. The “customary-law” label over-extends its reach, ignoring the four-layer spectrum—central statutes, local regulations, local compacts(xiangyue 乡约), and residual customs—and overlooking the Ming-Qing policy of systematically converting customs into written compacts in Han territories under effective imperial control. The claim of “the judicial-administrative fusion” mischaracterizes the functions of imperial judicial institutions in major dynasties and disregards the historical reality that, from the Song dynasty onward, the local judicial and the administrative were both separated and intertwined. The thesis of “judicial precedent” misapplies the common-law terminology “case law” to describe the judiciary analogy in ancient China. It misconstrues the nature of Qin and Han Bi(比), the Gushi(故事) of Han, Wei, Jin periods, and Cheng’an(成案) of the Qing distorts their nature and falsely implies a “mixed system of statute and precedent”. Conception accuracy is the bedrock of legal-historical inquiry. Only by discarding these inaccurate dicta and embracing an evidence-based approach can the field advance scientifically.更多还原