Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T07:51:03.712Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Response: The Politeness of History

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Abstract

In my response to the reviews of my book by Marianne Constable, Shai Lavi, and Renisa Mawani, I situate the argument of Common Law, History, and Democracy in America, 1790–1900: Legal Thought Before Modernism within a concern with contemporary forms of historical knowledge. Where contemporary historical knowledge practices subsume their objects of investigation, I adopt the temporality of the object of investigation—namely, the common law—as the structure my book. In different registers, Constable, Lavi, and Mawani urge me to take up more explicitly the foundational questioning about which they care. I welcome their readings. However, given the distinct problematic from which I start, I argue, the book is not in the first instance an argument about the ontology of history or law.

Type
Review Essay
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Parker, Kunal M 2006. Context in History and Law: The Late Nineteenth Century American Jurisprudence of Custom. Law and History Review 24 (3): 473518.Google Scholar