A Context for Legal History, or, This is not your Father’s Contextualism

Review of Legal History

“…Legal historians’ frustrations with the endless contingency seen in legal history scholarship has been seen on both sides of the Atlantic and in Australia (Desautels-Stein, 2015, 2016; Kennedy, 2017; Schultz, 2015; Tomlins, 2012a, 2012b). The bind that legal historians have seemingly found ourselves in is a tight one.…”

“…His point is that the law and legal argument are not unconstrained and law is not ‘endlessly indeterminate’ (Desautels-Stein, 2015: 54; see also Webber, 2006: 7). He urges legal historians to pay attention to the legal context, rather than the social context (Desautels-Stein, 2016: 36).…”

“…There is an unasked question here, however. Why is it that the complexity and constant contingency which so dominates legal history is undesirable and what is the motivation behind the call for ‘grander adventures in legal history’ (Desautels-Stein, 2016: 31)? At least part of the motivation may be the fear that legal history is otherwise irrelevant and that new methods and approaches will finally address the irrelevancy and draw other disciplines’ attention.…”